(
Sanskrit characters)
“Opinions are said to be of two kinds, one founded on the authority of the Dayubhagu, and the other opposed to it; (but) what is opposed to the Dayubhagu is not approved of by the learned.”
6. From a regard for the usages of the country, the practice of the British courts in Bengal, as far as relates to the law of inheritance, has been hitherto consistent with the principles laid down in the Dayubhagu, and judgments have accordingly been given on its authority in many most important cases, in which it differs materially from the Mitakshura. I notice a few important cases of frequent occurrence, which have been fully discussed, and invariably decided by the judicial tribunals in Bengal, in conformity with the doctrines of Jeemootvahun.
First. If a member of an undivided family dies, leaving no male issue, his widow shall not be entitled to her husband’s share, according to the Mitakshura: but according to the Dayubhagu, she shall inherit such undivided portion.[1]
- ↑ Mitakshura, Ch. II. Sec. i. Article 39. “Therefore it is a settled rule, that a wedded wife, being chaste, takes the whole state of a man, who, being separated from his coheirs, and not subsequently reunited with them, dies leaving no male issue.” Dayubhagu, Ch. XL Sec. i, Art. 43. “But, on failure of heirs down to the son’s grandson, the wife, being inferior in pretensions to sons and the rest, because she performs acts spiritually beneficial to her husband from the date of her widowhood, [and not, like them, from the moment of their birth,] succeeds to the estate in their default.” Ditto ditto, Art. 19. “Some reconcile the contradiction, by saying, that the preferable right of the brother supposes him either to be not separated or to be reunited; and the widow’s right of succcession is relative to the estate of one who was separated from his coheirs, and not reunited with them. (Art. 20.) That is contrary to a passage of Vrihusputi.”
