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

S. IV. S. 28 BANDHUS 165.
M. p. 82 l. 28 p. 83 l. 4 ]
( If an objection were raised that ) as the right to the wealth ( 1. e in-
heritance to the deceased ) in the case of the wife and all the other heirs is
based on their being directly connected with the deceased, so in the case of
the bandhus also let the same rule be followed; hence how is it that the
bandhus of the father and mother (of the deceased) are (declared) to be
entitled to the wealth (of the deceased)? The (two) verses ' the sons of
the father's father's sister &c. ' are meant only to convey the connection be-
tween a term ( sañjñā, here pitṛbandhu and mātṛbandhu ) and the objects
denoted by it and not to convey the connection of those with the wealth ( of
the deceased ) ( We reply ) since even without this text ( 1 e. the two
verses about pitṛbandhus and mātṛbandhus ) it is possible to employ the
word ( bāndhava or bandhu ) for the bandhus of the father and mother on
Pichu v Padmanabha 44 Mad 121 at p 128, where Sadashiva Ayyar J says that the verse
about atmabandhus is a childish and spurious text and that it is an illogical, incomplete and
inconsistent classification of bandhus and criticizes the doctrine of mutuality as fallacious
( at p 130 ) and ( at pp 128--129 ) the dictum in 6 Cal 119.( at p 128 ) that 'the heritable
bandhu must be a descendant of the maternal grandfather of the propositus or of the father
or mother of the propositus is wrong This opinion of Sadashiv Ayyar J is criticized in 44
Mad 753 ( P C ) at p 761 (= 48 I. A 349). Vide 49 Mad 652 at pp. 660--662 for criticism¹
of Sarvadhikari's rules and of 6 Cal 119. Great confusion is caused by judges giving vary-
ing reasons for preferring one bandhu belonging to one class over another bandhu of the same
class e g where the claimants are equally related in degree to the deceased, a male is to be
preferred to a female ( Narasimma v Mangammal 18 Mad. 10, Balkrishna v. Ramkrishna
45 Bom 353 ), sometimes the ground stated is said to be that bandhus ex parte paterna are
preferred to ex parte materna (Saguna v Sadashiva 26 Bom 710 and 55 Cal 1153), that those
between whom and the propositus a single female intervners are to be preferred to those bet-
ween whom and the propositus two females intervene ( 30 Mad 406, which is not accepted
by Rajeppa v. Gangappa 47 Bom 48 ), even where the Mitākṣarā law applies it was held
by the Privy Council that those bandhus who confer greater spiritual efficacy are to be pre-
ferred to others, though of the same class and though equally near in degree, who confer less
spiritual benefit Vide Jotindra Nath v Nagendra Nath, 38 Bom L R 1411 ( P C )
where the son of a half-sister of the father of the propositus was preferred to the son of the
sister of his mother As regards bandhus specifically named in the verses conflicting deci-
sions have been given e g 48 Mad 722 holds that the maternal uncle's son is to be preferred
to the maternal aunt's son, while in Rajeppa v Gangappa 47 Bom. 48 those two bandhus
were held entitled to succeed equally The following cases will give some idea of the com-
plexities of the problems involved, Muthusami v Muthukumarsami 16 Mad 23 at p. 30
( same case in P C as 19 Mad 405 ) sets forth four propositions which are approved of in
Vedachala v Subramania 48 I A 349 at p 360 = 44 Mad 753 at p 763, Adit Narayan v.
Mahabir 48 I A 86, Kenchava v Girimallappa 48 Bom 569 ( P C ) = 57 I A 368, Sakha-
ram v Balkrishna 49 Bom 739 ( F B ) = 27 Bom L R 1003, Umashankar v Mussum-
mat Nageswari 3 Patna L J 633 ( F B ), Gajadhar v Gaurishankar 54 All 698 F. B.,
which holds that Sarvadhikari's rules are substantially correct and arrives at a conclusion
exactly opposite to that in 49 Mad 652 In order to prevent uncertainty and wasteful
litigation consequent thereon it is extremely desirable that the Legislature should at once
intervene by enacting a simple and easily applicable method of indicating preference among
bandhus