व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

S. IV. 8. 20-22 ]    GOTRAJAS AS HEIRS    163
M. p. 82 ll. 5-16 ]
them (the paternal grandfather and half-brother), the paternal great-grand-
father, the uncle and the half-brother's son take (the estate) by sharing (it
equally).¹ All the sapiṇḍas and samānodakas (take) in the order
of their propinquity. Manu (V. 60) declares them as follows :
The sapiṇḍa relationship ceases with the seventh person (in the line)
and that of samānodakas ends when birth and name are no longer
known.²
(Saptame) means after the seventh (person) is reached (or has
passed away).
In default³ of sodakas (i. e. samānodakas) bandhus (take as heirs).

1. The treatment of the subject of inheritance after the sister in the Mayūkha is very
   scrappy, vague and unsatisfactory. Even the Mit. gives more details. The latter distinctly
   states that after the father's line come in order the paternal grandmother, paternal grandfather,
   uncle, uncle's son, after the paternal grandfather's line come in order the paternal great-
   grandmother, the paternal great-grandfather, grand-uncle and his son, that in this way up to
   the seventh person (from the deceased) is to be understood the right of succession in the case
   of 'samānagotra sapiṇḍas'. The Mayūkha is quite silent about the great-grandmother. It
   does not expressly refer to lines beyond the great-grand-father, nor does it clearly state how
   many generations in each line are to be taken. The following propositions have been esta-
   blished by judicial decisions (I) That the nearer line excludes the more remote i. e. a male
   in the father's line excludes a male in the grandfather's line and the latter excludes the
   great-grand-father's line, (II) that the widow of a gotraja sapiṇḍa in one line is postponed
   to any male properly belonging to that line (e g a paternal uncle's grandson is to be pre-
   ferred to a paternal uncle's widow as in Kashibai v. Moreshwar 35 Bom 389 = 13 Bom L
   R 552), (III) but the widow of a gotraja sapiṇḍa of a nearer line excludes a male belong-
   ing to a remote line e g a brother's widow is a nearer heir than a paternal uncle's son or the
   grandson of the grand-uncle, Basangavda v Basangavda 39 Bom 87 = 16 Bom L R 699
   and Khandacharya v Govindacharya 13 Bom L. R 1005 As regards what is meant by
   line (santāna in the Mit) there was great divergence of view, vide Buddhasing v Laltasing
   42 I A 208=37 All 604 for reference to three different views It may be assumed that
   according to the Bombay view each line extends to six descendants in the main line from the
   common ancestor (i e inclusive of the common ancestor there are seven generations in each
   line who are sapiṇḍas and also gotrajas) Vide Rachava v Kalingappa 16 Bom. 716, Appaji
   v Mohanlal 32 Bom L R 709 (F B) In Vithalrao v Ramrao 24 Bom 317 at p 334 four
   meanings of the word pratyāsatti (nearness) are given and it is said at p 338 that the
   Mayūkha theory of propinquity is of descent in line and degree from the common ancestor
   and that inheritance through a common female ancestor is unknown. In Garuddas v.
   Laldas 35 Bom L R 597 (P C) it was laid down overruling 24 Bom 317 and 51 Bom
   194 that the preference of whole blood over half blood extends to all heirs of the same degree
   such as paternal uncles and is not confined to brothers or brother's sons.

• 2 This whole passage about sapiṇḍas and samānodakas is quoted in Bai Devkore v
  Amritram 10 Bom 372 at p 380 and it was held that 'samānodaka' includes 'descendants
  from a common (male) ancestor more remotely related than the 13th degree from the pro-
  positus and that a samānodaka is to be preferred to a bandhu, but Rama Row v Kuttiya 40
  Mad 654 dissents from 10 Bom 372 and holds that a samānodaka must be within 14 degrees
  from the common ancestor. Vide Haribhai v. Mathur 47 Bom 340 at p 342 for quotation
  about sapiṇḍas and samānodakas.
  3 Bandhu, according to the Mit, is a sapiṇḍa but of a different gotra i e they are cog-
  nate kindred who are related to the propositus through a female and not through an unbroken
  male descent. This section about bandhus is quoted or referred to in numerous cases, vide
  e g, Sha Chamanlal v Doshi 28 Bom 453 (=6 Bom L R 460) at pp 455-56, Ramcharan v.
  Rahim 38 All 416 at p 421, Parot Bapalal v Mehta Harilal 19 Bom. 631, Muthuswami v.
  Sunambedu 28 I. A. 83 at p 89 (=19 Mad 405).