vYAvASTHA'...DARPANA. 455 grandmothers on aqual share with themselves, the words.'equal añare with themselve are construed separatively instead of collectively, so as to meanscoording to the share of each grandson. if such construction bodopted, it will beliable to the followingoljections. he several soils may not have left an equal progeny, i.e. one of them may have, left one son and another sons; and since grandsons succeed to the estate of the grandfather per stirpes, and not per capita, their shares may be very unequal. For instance, the only son of his father will receive one share, and each of the four sons of his dncle will obtain but a fourth of that share. in what proportion then is the grandmother to share in the estate? or with whose share is hers to be co-equal? . , - * . Supposing that, to comply the pandits' construction, the estate of the deceased is divided, according to the number of grandsons, into five shares, for the purpose of creating a share for the grandmother, by taking a fifth from each of the grandsons to make up the said share. In this case, as the grandson who is the only son of his father, takes a moiety of the property and gives one-fifth of the fourth (part of his share) as his portion to the said share, each of the other four grandsons who take but an eighth of the estate, is obliged to contribute in the same proportion, which is an obvious hardship on these—the obligations of all the grandsons being the same, but their contributions very unequal in proportion to the benefits received by them severally. The grandsons inherit the estate per stirpes, but, according to the pandits' construction, when the several sons have left an unequal progeny, they contribute to the grandmother's share pèr capita. It is inconsistent with the reason of the law that they should inherit according to one rule, and contribute according to another to the grandmother's share, especially when it is consi dered that the grandmother's right is on the cstate of her husband and the grandsons inherit it subject to that charge. o The usual rule for the construction of the Hindu law is thus declared by VRIHAspati – ‘A decision must not be made solely by having recourse to the letter of written codes (Shastra) since if no decision were made according to the reason of the law (or according to immemorial usage, for the word jukti admits both senses) there might be a sailure of justice.” when the reasons laid down in the Sha'atra for the share of the mother and the grandmother, are taken into consideration, there cannot be any other conclusion than that they are respectively entitled to a share equal to that of their sons. te Itegarding the great-grandmother's right to a share on partition of the great-grandfather's property, JaoaxNATHA in one place of his Digest (Piradalhangarnava) says: “However there is no reasoning whieh cari show it incumbent on the great-grandsous, and the rest, to allot aslinre to their great-grandmother. No allotment shall be given to a great-grandmother. Such is the opinion of Joséravanana and the rest;" and in another he affirms: “When property left by the paternal great-grandfather is divided, should not a share be allotted to his wife?—that is admissible from parity of reasoning.” The latter opinion of the author seems to be consistent with reason; for although the IIindu law. does not expressly recognise any right of the great-grandmother upon partition made by her great-grandsons and the rest, yet if the mother and grandmother can be entitled to The great grandmother's right to a share.
