VYAVASTHA'-DARPANA. 449 I. In this instance, likewisa,the contemporary wives of the grandmother are not entitled to participate; they need only be maintained. For the reason above stated,’ the term grandmother refers exclusively to the natural arent of the fathèr. This is the received opinion. But in truth the word ‘ull” being used in the text above quoted, and the word ‘grandmothers ” being in the number, it is reasonable that the contemporary wives of the grandmother be also "entitled to participate.* 辦。 II. When the patrimony left by the paternal grandfather is divided, the allotment of a share to the wives of that ancestor is ordained. Modern lawyers hold, that shares must in that case be allotted even to those wives of the paternal grandfather who have no sons.” Coleb. Dig. vol. III. p. 24. -- $ 142 If the grafidmother happen to be the heiress of a grandson deceased, she will, as such, inherit his share, and also on partition, she will, as grandmother, get her proportionate share.f 143. The grandmother is entitled to take a grandson's share, not only on par. tition between her grandsons themselves but also between her grandson and the heir or heirs of a grandson deceased.| 姆 144 If any of the grandsons or the heir of a (deceaagd) grandson take his share from the rest, even then the grandmother is entitled to her share.
- Some say that the grandmother here signifies the father's natural mother, for the reasons before explained. But others infer from the use of the plural number, and the mention of 'all', that all the wives of the grandfather shall have shares. SRI'Kaishna’s commentary on the Dáyabhāga, Sans. p. 82.
t See" Wyavasthā No. 187 and whatever is quoted in illustration thereof. The Supreme Court Pandits say, ‘if a son be one of the partitioning parties, with great grandsons, that she ought to take a son's share; and if a grandson be such a party, that she ought to take a grand son's share.’ They think themselves justified in this opinion by the principles of law, although the law itself is not expressly declared. Cons. H. L. p. 52. - The following case was put by me to the Supreme Court Pandits: “ Supposing the mother of E, F, and G to be living, when - = 3 ملی _. _ یہ باقر e partition—what ီါရီ' if any, will the mother of E, F, and G take upon that partition?’ It will be be: tween her grandsons, her great grandsons, and great great grandsons. I was told that the Hindu law did not make any provision for such a case. I reminded them that the Hindu law gave a grandson's ilitiད་། !!! the grandmother upon a partition made among her randsons—and a son's share upon a partition made among her sons and her grandsons. This they admitted to be the law. I asked them if it was not reatition made among her grandsons, and her sonable that she should take a grandson's share upon a to 必 ை : * more remote descendants. The resonableness of the thing they acquicsged in, and said, if such, a one arose, they supposed it would be so decided, and that she would get a grandson's share. Sir Francis Macnagh ten's Consideratione, pp. 42,48. Remarks Vyawastł1:í. .Vyavastha Vy:wastha. the sons of F, the grandsons of F, and the great grandsons of G come to a.
