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

S. IV. 10. 34-11.1 ] · HEIRS TO STRĪDHANA 191
M. p. 99 ll. 10-22 ]
The wealth¹ of a deceased maiden may be taken equally by her full
brothers, on failure of them, it belongs to her mother and in default of
her, it belongs to the father.
Those conversant² with traditional usage say that this (text) relates
to ornaments and the like presented by the maternal grandfather and the
like at the time of betrothal to a girl who dies before (the actual celebra-
tion of) marriage.
Now (begins) the treatment of those who are excluded from
a share (or inheritance).
Yāj (II. 140) says
An impotent person, a patita (one who is an outcast for some grave
sin) and one born of him, a lame man, a mad man, an idiot, a blind man
and one afflicted with an incurable disease are not entitled to a share and
are to be maintained (only)³

1. This is referred to in Gandhi Maganlal v Bai Jadab 24 Bom 192 (F. B)
   = 1 Bom. L R 574 where a paternal grandmother inheriting from her maiden grand-
   daughter was held to have taken the estate absolutely which she could dispose of by will
   In Janglubai v. Jetha 32 Bom 409 the text of Baudhāyana is quoted at p 411 and it
   was held that to the wealth of a maiden of the Kamathi class in Poona her father's mother's
   sister was a preferential heir to the maiden's maternal grandmother. In Tukaram v. Narayan
   36 Bom. 339 (F B.) the father's sister was held to be a preferential heir of a maiden to
   the male gotraja sapindas of her father five or six degrees removed The principle is that
   the nearest heir of the father is the heir of the maiden. Vide Kamalabai v. Bhagirthibai 38
   Mad. 45, Sundaram v. Ramasamia 43 Mad 32, Dwarkanath v Saratchandra 39 Cal 319.
   2 'Those conversant with &c' -- This refers to the Mit, 'betrothal' --the original
   word is 'vāgdāna' which literally means 'gift by words'.
2. Act XII of 1928 abrogates all] grounds of exclusion from inheritance except lunacy
   and idiocy from birth The act, however, does not apply to those cases which are governed
   by the Dāyabhāga In numerous reported cases this text of Yāj and the texts of Manu
   and other sages have been quoted and interpreted, but in view of the recent legislation
   referred to above, it is not necessary to go into them in great detail Besides act XXI of
   1850 (Caste Disabilities Removal Act) had already abrogated the ancient Hindu Law as
   to loss of rights to property or rights of inheritance by reason of a man's renouncing his
   religion or by reason of his being deprived of caste for breaches of rules observed by the
   caste in which he was born Vide Gangaram v. Ballha P J for 1876 p. 31 where the
   V M. is referred to (at p 32) as to an outcast Vide also Murarji v Parvatibai I Bom
   177 at pp 179--180 (where both Yāj and Manu are quoted) 'A patita' --Vide Gangu v
   Chandrabhagabai 32 Bom 275 as to a murderer being disqualified to inherit to the person
   murdered by him (at pp 290--291 texts and the Mayūkha about wives of murderers) and
   Kenchava v. Girimallappa 48 Bom 569 P C.=51 I.A. 367 (where 32 Bom. 275 was distin-
   guished) The degradation of a daughter on account of incontinence does not put an end
   to her right to inherit the stridhana property of her mother, as held in Angammal v. Venkata
   26 Mad. 509, (512) and in Ram Pergash v: Mussammat Dahan Bibi 3 Patna 152 (at p. 178.)
   it was held that conversion to Mahomedanism before the succession opened did not cause