that: thus they say in the case of a brother, and sister sharing, the estate shall be divided into two equal parts : the son shall take one of these: the other is to be again divided into four, and one of those subdivisions shall go to the daughter: the rest shall devolve upon the son: consequently he will have seven-eighths, and the sister, one eighth, but we cannot conceive the law to sanction any such clumsy construction. It is true it does not authorise a sister's sharing in the whole estate to the extent of one fourth: because, in that case supposing six sons, and one daughter, the son would only take one-eighth, or half as much as the least worthy. Now this would be quite contrary to the spirit of the Hindu law. Again, a daughter cannot be said to take only one fourth of one actual share equal to that of a son, because in the case of there being five or more daughters, all above four would go without any share at all: the inconsistencies of the law as thus understood, are too obvious to have escaped the learned judge's notice; he has accordingly detailed them at considerable length, but he has offered no solution of the difficulty, nor attempted to explain, what is evidently the purpose of the law, and what involves no absurdity nor contradiction. A sister shall have the fourth part of a brother's own share: that is she shall divide with a brother in the proportion of one to three, or to state it more distinctly, a brother shall take seventyfive in the hundred, and the sister twenty-five. It is clear that be the number of sisters, or brothers, what it may, this principle is of unvarying and ready application, and it is not the law, but the arithmetic of the case that has created any perplexity: we shall not dwell upon the subject here as we shall have again occasion to advert to it, when we examine the similar principle which regulates the portion of adopted after the birth of natural sons. We may observe that if the Court were to do what Sir F. M. supposes (p. 104) it might by virtue of the laws of Menu, it would be just as bad arithmetic as that of the Hindu Scholiasts, and worse law-he states that if there were three brothers, and one sister; and the estate 24,000 rupees: the court would declare the sister entitled to one fourth or 6,000, placing the female heir on a par with the male in contradiction to the spirit of both English and Hindu law; the purport of which latter is clearly, that the brothers in such a case should receive each 7,200 rupees, and the sister 2,400 rupees. We have a mighty simple rule called Single Fellow. ship, which is the best comment upon the Hindu law that can be offered. The next division of Sir F. M.'s work is upon reunion, the return of a separated brother to the co-parcenary enjoyment of property: in fact, however, the chapter treats only of one circumstance connected with reunion or the rights of a separated uterine brother and united half brother to inherit; it being held by some lawyers, that a connexion by blood confers priority of right whether united or separated, and by others, that reunion places a half brother on a par with a whole brother and entitles him to an equal division of the inheritance: the learned judge admits, that he knows no instance of such reunion, and the chief object of the section seems to be an attack upon the digest of Jagannath, an exceedingly useful work, although it does not profess to save those who consult it, the trouble of judging for themselves. As little practical benefit would result from the investigation of this subject, we shall not dwell upon it further. The next section treats of a subject of great importance in Hindu law as giving rise to almost daily discussion; Adoption. A Hindu must have a son to extricate himself and his ancestors from a kind of purgatory, and if he have no children of his own he must adopt one. It is said indeed by Menu, that "amongst several brothers if one have a son they are all pronounced fathers of a male child" and it might be supposed unnecessary, therefore for the uncles to adopt sons for themselves; upon this Sir F. M. observes, Upon this particular point, the sum of all I have been able to collect out of books, or from living authorities, is, that in the three superior classes, if there be brothers of the whole blood, a son of one of them, for religious purposes, will be the son of all; and that while this son exists, the childless brothers by the same father and mother, need not adopt one for the performance of sacred rites. But, that in a secular point of view, a male child is not considered as the son of his father's brethren-and that to take the heritage as a son of his uncle, he must be adopted; that temporally considered, he does not, as a son, derive any benefits from them-and that the son of a brother is recommended, in preference to all others, for adoption. I find this explained, and I think satisfactorily, in an opinion given by Goverdhana, some time since a Pundit of the Supreme Court. He quotes Vrihaspati as follows:-If among several uterine brothers, one have a son born, the whole are considered as fathers. These authorities declare a nephew even as a son to a childless uncle--effecting as a son would do, the relief of his soul from the hell called put. It therefore follows that the adoption of any other son, during the existence of such nephew ought not to take place, and that he ought to be preferred It must not however, be inferred, that because such nephew be equal to a son in this one respect, that he is so in any other without being qualifi ed by adoption-as, according to the following stanza of Yajnyawalcya, his title to inherit his uncle's estate, comes after that of the widow, daughter, daughter's son, father, mother, and uncle-whereas, were he adopted, he would precede all these. There is another view of the subject, however, to which neither Goverdhana nor the learned Judge has adverted, and which appears to us to afford a much more satisfactory conclusion, even than the arguments of the former. The son of a brother is only in a subordinate or subsidiary capacity of benefit to his uncle in his own person, in the matter of religious rites. That is, he offers no funeral cake to his uncle's spirit, except under a special rule, the exact purport of which is not admitted, but is supposed to imply only a confirmation of the undisputed doctrine that the son of a brother should be preferably adopted: he benefits his uncle mediately in as far as he offers cakes to his grandfather and greatgrandfather, the common ancestors of his father and his uncle. In these oblations the latter has a share, but if he die without a natural or adopted son, he loses the certainty of his own oblation, and will consequently run the risk of purgatory. To escape this chance, from which it is doubtful if the oblations of a nephew can secure him, he must adopt a son for himself, and it is therefore not only on secular but religious grounds that such adoption is imperative. The text of Menu does not contradict this view of the case, and the expres sion occurs merely in illustration of the figurative application, of the term Son, to an adopted son, who can bear such relation, actually only to his natural father, although he is considered to bear it legally to his adoptive pa rent-the conclusion affecting the right of uncles to adopt sons is Culluca Bhatta's, not Menu's, and in this case, and every other it may be observed, that the remarks of a scholiast, however high his character, do not debar the exercise of independant reasoning: A pundit of the present day, who should bring superior talent to the task would be entitled, to a preference over all preceding expositors. As to the legend from the Kalika Purana cited by Sir F. M. from the Dattaka Mimansa, it does not seem to us to bear materially on the question, and if it did it would signify little for the Puranas, are not authorities in law. They may be received in explanation or illustration, but not in proof. The right of an adopted son, to inherit collaterally, which has been the subject of much difference of opinion amongst the Pundits, and variety of decisions in the courts-is next discussed by the learned Judge: with his usual disregard to arrangement however, he has made the same topic the subject of discussion. in his preface, whilst in the same chapter, after some interval, he narrates the case of Gourbullukh v. Jagannath Prasad in which this subject was the question at issue, and illustrates it in the appendix, by the opinions of 51 pundits, belonging to the different Courts--we agree with him in his conclusions, that an adopted son, or the son given, has the right of collateral succession, and that its ever being contested, shewed but a partial appeal to the authorities or the principles of Hindu law: the following is the view of the question we are disposed to advocate. Twelve kinds of sons are enumerated by Menu and other writers: these sons are divided into two classes: those who are heirs and kinsmen (Dayadas and Bandhavas,) and those who are not heirs but kinsmen. It is agreed that a son of one kind or other, F there being no son of a superior class, in his way, takes the inheritance of his adoptive father, and the specification of them as heirs does not apply to his wealth, but to that of such persons as the father would be heir to in the event of their deaths; as "uncles and the rest," according to Maheswara, and as Sapindas, or the paternal grandfather and others connected by the funeral cake, according to Jimutavahana. There is no difference of opinion on these subjects, but the question is, which of the adopted sons inherit thus collaterally, and which do not, and here we have some difference of classification: we have taken some pains to ascertain the notions of the different authorities with respect to the comparative grade of the different sorts of adopted sons, and they seem to us to run as follows: Son of unknown parentage(Gurhotpanna) Son of an unmarried Girl (Kanina) .... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00200 235 23 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 7 9 7 99 4 5 5 4 4 910. 911 11 9 6 5 5 4 6 656 5 6 7 7 6 6 12 7 12 68 7 8 8 7 7 5 5 4 4 4 8 10 9 8 8 11 8 10 7 5 1 410 9 9 811 812 10 10 11 11 10 10 11 6 12 11 11 Son of a remarried widow (Paunerbhava) .... 6 4 387 10 12 11 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 kinds of twelve, a This enumeration extends to thirteen sons, but they are regarded usually as but daughter's son, or a son by a female Sudra, being excluded from some of the lists. It is immaterial, however, to adjust the scale throughout, for in the present age, there are but three descriptions of sons admitted, the natural son, the son given or Dattaka, and in some places the Kritrima or son made-the learned judge in |