VYAVASŤFIA:sÐ ÁRPANA. - 453 partition made, and eachseef thema have *ం:త then supoo apartition... of these sons of B, C, and D, their grandmother. (the widow of Ayeshall not be ontitled to...one fourth, as she would have been, had either B, C, or D, been liying at the time. of partition—#but she shall share with grandsons per capita, șlthough they will share per stirpes. Thus, if B shall have left two, C three, and D four, sons سسةthe estate of A be divided into ten päite,--of - which his widow (the mother of B, C, and D) shall take one,—the two sons of B'shall take three-three sons of C shall take three-and the four sons of D shall take three. (Cons. H. L. pp. 52, 58). As in the above case the shares of some of the grandsons would be much larger than the portion of the grandmother and as the law does by no means provide that in a case like the above the share of the grandmother, must be equal to that grandson's share who receives the smallest portion, the best living authorities were consulted on the point; and after a mature consideration the conclusion arrived at by them is that the grandmother should get a grandson's share where the granidsons inherit and divide per capita, and a son's share where the grandsons inherit per stirpes and (originally) divide according to the number of their fathers (sons of the late proprietor). The following is the abstract of the written opinion of Bábu Prosanna Kumār Thákur, the first of the authorities consulted on the occasion :- - - “If the sons of a deceased owner all died in his lifetime, or having survived their father, all died as joint and undivided owners of an estate left by their deceased father, in either case, on the occasion of partition of sueh estate by the grandsons, is the grandmother entitled to any, and if so what share according to the Hindu law prevalent in Bengal P The author of the Dáyabhaga in Chapter III. Section 2, Page 64. paragraph82, states as follows : “Wives of the father (meaning step-mothers) who have no male issue, not those who are mothers of sons (must be rendered) equal sharers (with the son). So Vyasa ordains : ‘Even childless wives of the father are pronounced equal sharers; and so are all the paternal grandmothers they are declared equal to mothers.” Visnu likewise says, “Mothers receive allotments according to the shares of sons; and so do unmarried daughters.” இ The commentators on the above work, perhaps thinking it unnocessary or from oversight. are entirely silent as to the purpose and intent of the passage, viz. ‘and so are all the paternal grandmothers: they are declared equal to mothers.” The Digest of II indu Law, Book V. Chapter II. page 27, states only on the above point that - ‘when partition is made among sons or grandsons, they must allot to their natural mother or grandmother an equal share with themselves.” Here the right of the grandmother to a share on the partition of her husband's estate is clear and positive, but it is not equally clear whether the amount of that share will be equal to the share of the sons or grandsons. The latter take per stirnes, i. e. divide among themselves the shares of their respective fathers. If, following the preceding rules for the eonstruction of the law in question, the pandiss' opinion cited by Sir F. Macnaghten be examined with the reason of the law, the fallacy of their dictum will be evident. The Pandits, it is supposed have supported their views by torturing the letter of the law, as by the passage in tho Dasyabhaga ‘so are all the paternal grandmothers : they are declared equal to mothers.” In the passage of the Digest of Hindu Law,-‘To allot to
