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

164 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV s. 22
[M p. 82 ll. 16-27
And they are (thus stated) in another smṛti:

• The sons of one's father's sister the sons of one's mother's sister and
  the sons of one's maternal uncle-these are to be known as ātmabandhus
  the sons of one's father's father's sister, the sons of one's father's mother's
  sister the sons of one's father's maternal uncle-these are to be known as
  one's pitṛbandhus, the sons of one's mother's father's sister the
  sons of one's mother's mother's sister the sons of one's mother's maternal
  uncle-these are to be known as one's mātṛbandhus
  Here¹ (i e in the texts quoted) the order (of succession) is that
  which is conveyed by the order of the words of the text
  1 In Gridhari v The Government of Bengal 12 Moore's Indian Appeals 448 it was
  held that the enumeration of bandhus is only illustrative and not exhaustive and that the
  maternal uncle though not mentioned here is a very near bandhu and would succeed in prefer-
  ence to his own son, who is specifically mentioned. Following this case it was said in 23 I.A. 83
  (at p. 89) that the Mit. rather classifies by sample without attempting to specify every
  member of each class. The words 'here the order &c.' are quoted in Mohandas v Kri-
  shnabai 5 Bom. 597 at p. 602 and it is said that this remark only applies to the preference of
  ātmabandhus to pitṛbandhus and of pitṛbandhus to mātṛbandhus and that there is nothing in
  the Mit. or Mayūkha which can be construed into a direction that the nine specified
  bandhus are to take precedence of all unspecified bandhus and that the text of Manu (9.187)
  furnishes the proper ground for decision. This remark 'here the order &c' is quoted in
  Bajeppa v Gangappa 4 Bom. 48 at pp 51 and 53 and it is held that it does not refer to
  preference among ātmabandhus inter se Mandlik's footnote 'this applies to the three classes
  as well as to the several members of the three classes' was quoted with approval in Appan
  dai v Bagapali 33 Mad. 439 at p. 442 (where mother's sister's son was preferred to mater-
  nal uncle's son) but it was disapproved in Sakharam v Balkrishna 49 Bom. 739 F.B. at p.
  753 (= 27 Bom. L. R. 1003) and the case in 33 Mad. 439 was dissented from in 38 All 416
  at p. 424 The decision in 33 Mad. 439 was dissented from in 48 Mad. 722 where the Mayū-
  kha is quoted at p 742.
  There is a bewildering mass of cases on the succession of bandhus and it is impossible to
  reconcile the decisions. Besides some principles have been introduced by the decisions which
  have no direct basis in the texts or commentaries. In Umaid Bahadur v Udoichand 6 Cal
  119 (F B.) it was assumed that there must be mutuality of sapinda relationship between
  the person claiming as bandhu and the propositus and that in order that a man may be an
  heritable bandhu of the propositus they must be related either directly through themselves
  or through their mother or father In Ramchandra v Vinayak 41 I.A p 290 (=42 Cal. 384)
  the above propositions were accepted and it was said that sapinda relationship in the case of
  bandhus extends only up to five degrees (relying on the Mit. on the mother's side in the
  mother's line after the fifth &c.). It is submitted with great respect that all these propo-
  sitions are based on no solid textual authority and are not supported by sound reasoning. If
  the enumeration of bandhus in the three verses quoted in all digests is not exhaustive but
  only illustrative how can it be said that the relationship must be only through one's self or
  one's mother or father? Similarly if sapinda relationship extends to seven degrees on a
  man's father's side and five degrees on a man's mother's side (Yāj. I 53) a bandhu (who is
  a bhinnagotra sapinda) may be so provided he is within seven degrees on his father's side
  from the common ancestor of himself and deceased. Vide Rama Sing v ? All. 10. The
  text of Manu (9 187) on which the requirement of mutuality is based has not been correctly
  interpreted. Vide Subramania v Vargo athan 41 Mad 114 at p 117 and Chinna
  p 144 (text).