SHAHA MAN DAL 1870 "when deceased, of oblations presented to the same person; thereGURU GOBIND "fore, such being the case, the middlemost of seven who, while "living, offered food to the manes of ancestors, and when dead ANAND LAL "partook of offerings made to them, became the object to which MAZUMDAR. "the oblations of his descendants were addressed in their life-time, v. GHOSE 66 "and shares with them, when they are deceased, the food which "must be offered by the daughter's son and other descendants "beyond the third degree. Hence, those ancestors to whom he 'presented oblations, and those descendants who present oblations "to him, partake of an undivided offering in the form of (pinda) "food at obsequies. Persons who partake of such offerings are "sapindas."-Colebrooke's Dayabhaga, Chapter XI, Section 1, verse 38. It is clear from the above passage, that if two Hindus are bound during the respective terms of their natural life to offer funeral oblations to a common ancestor or ancestors, either of them would be entitled after his death to participate in the oblations offered by the survivor to that ancestor or ancestors; and hence it is that the person who offers those oblations, the person to whom they are offered, and the person who participates in them, are recognized as sapindas of each other. That this definition of sapinda is good for all purposes of inheritance is conclusively shown by the very next verse, which says: "This relation of sapindas (extending no further than the "fourth degree) as well as that of sakulayas, has been propounded relatively to inheritance."-Colebrooke's Dayabhaga, Chapter XI, Section 1, verse 39. 66 In order to apply this definition to the particular case under our consideration, we think it necessary to make a few preliminary observations on the ceremony of the Parbana Shrad, which has been already referred to in an earlier part of this judgment. This ceremony consists in the presentation of a certain number of oblations, namely one to each of the first three ancestors in the paternal and maternal lines respectively; or, in other words, to the father, the grandfather, and the great-grandfather in the one line, and the maternal grandfather, the maternal greatgrandfather, and the maternal great-great-grandfather in the other. It is for this reason that this ceremony is frequently SHAHA MAN DAL 2. ANAND LAL GHOSE MAZUMDAR. referred to in the Dayabhaga under the name of the Troipurosik 1870 Pind, or Pind relating to three ancestors; and it is through the GURU GOBIND oblations presented at this ceremony, that the relation of sapinda propounded in that treatise admittedly arises. Every Hindu is bound by his religion to perform this ceremony, for his own salvation, which is intimately connected with that of his ancestors, is absolutely dependent on such performance; and of all the ceremonies prescribed by that religion, it is, therefore, the most important. Such then being the nature of the Parbana Shrad, and of the obligation to perform it, it is clear that the deceased proprietor was just as much bound to fulfil that obligation as his paternal uncle's daughter's son, who is now claiming his estate by right of inheritance. Now, it is obvious, from the very position of the parties, that the maternal great-grandfather and the maternal great-great-grandfather of the latter are no other persons than the paternal grandfather and the paternal great-grandfather respectively of the former; and the conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that they are sapindas of each other according to the strictest interpretation of the Dayabhaga. The deceased proprietor was bound to offer funeral cakes to his own paternal grandfather and paternal great-grandfather, during his lifetime; and he is, therefore, entitled, after his death, to participate in the cakes that are now offered to those very persons by the son of his paternal uncle's daughter. But there is another mode for arriving at the same conclusion. The deceased proprietor, it will be seen, was the grandson of the maternal great-grandfather of the appellant; and it is admitted that the grandson of the maternal great-grandfather is entitled to inherit as a sapinda according to all the authorities current in the Bengal school. If, therefore, the deceased proprietor was a sapinda of the appellant, it would necessarily follow, from the very definition of that term, that the latter is also a sapinda of the former, for if A. is connected with B., through the medium of undivided oblations, the conclusion is irresistible that B. is also connected with A. through the same medium. There is, however, an important distinction between the two cases, to which particular attention is required. The oblations which the deceased SHAHA MAN DAL v. GHOSE 1870 proprietor would have offered to his own paternal grandfather GURU GOBIND and paternal great-grandfather would have gone to the maternal great-grandfather and the maternal great-great-grandfather of ANAND LAL his paternal uncle's daughter's son; whereas the oblations offered MAZUMDAR. by the latter to his own maternal great-grandfather and maternal great-great-grandfather would go to the paternal grandfather and the paternal great-grandfather of the former. Now, it has been already observed that, according to the Dayabhaga, oblations offered to paternal ancestors are of higher spiritual value than those offered to maternal ancestors, so that it is clear that the appellant is a much nearer sapinda of the deceased proprietor than the deceased proprietor was of the appellant. Having shown by the foregoing observations, that the son of a paternal uncle's daughter is fully entitled to come within the principle of spiritual benefit which constitutes the fundamental basis of the law of inheritance propounded in the Dayabhaga, we will now proceed to examine the various objections that have been urged before us against his right to succeed as an heir. It has been contended that the son of a paternal uncle's daughter has been nowhere mentioned as an heir in the Dayabhaga. We are of opinion that this objection is entitled to no weight whatever. Every one who has gone through the Dayabhaga must have perceived that the specific enumeration of each individual heir was not the object which the author had in view. It is perfectly true, that a few of the heirs have been mentioned by name here and there; but the great majority of them have been left to be determined by the application of the principle of spiritual benefit. Thus of the numerous relatives who are entitled to come in as sapindas by virtue of their right to offer oblations to the maternal ancestor of the deceased proprietor, the maternal uncle is the only one who has been mentioned by Then again among the sakulayas, or kinsmen connected by divided oblations, the grandson's grandson is the only person who has been specifically enumerated; and of the samanodakas, or kinsmen connected by libations of water, not one even has been so enumerated. In the face of all these facts, it is impossible to contend that the mere absence of specific enumeration is any ground whatever for excluding one single individual who is name. SHAHA MAN DAL v. ANAND LAL GHOSE really competent to fulfil the conditions of heirship laid down 1870 in the Dayabhaga itself. It has been further contended GURU GOBIND that the order of succession specified in the Dayabhaga down to the sakulayas is so precise and complete by itself, that there is no room left for the introduction of the paternal uncle's daughter's son, who, if he is entitled to come in at all, must come in among the earlier class of heirs, namely, the sapindas. We are of opinion that this objection, too, must fail. If the Dayabhaga were a work of the same character as the Dayakrama Sangraha of Srikrishna Tarkalankar, which does not pretend to do anything more than to lay down a mere table of succession, or categorical list of heirs, there might have been some foundation for this argument. But when we consider that the real object which the author of the Dayabhaga had in view, was to establish a general principle of his own, and not to go through all the particular applications of that principle, as is evident from our answer to the first objection, it is impossible to attach any weight whatever to an argument of this sort. If the claimant in this case had been the son of a maternal uncle's daughter, or some other relative of the same description, who is merely competent to offer oblations to the maternal ancestors of the deceased proprietor, no such objection could have been possibly urged against him, according to the strictest interpretation of the Dayabhaga. Why then are we to suppose that the author of that work intended to exclude the son of the paternal uncle's daughter, when it is beyond all question that he is competent to offer oblations to a much higher class of ancestors, namely, the paternal? Why in fact are we to suppose that the enumeration of the one class of sapindas was intended to be exhaustive, whilst that of the other and a far inferior class was intended to be merely illustrative? If doubts are still entertained on this point, we have only to refer to the provisions of verse 19, Section 6, Chapter XI of the Dayabhaga. The following is a literal translation of that verse from the original: "Therefore, a kinsman who is allied by a common oblation "as presenting funeral oblations called the Troipurosik Pind "in the family of the father, or in that of the mother of the 1870 SHAHA MAN DAL 17. ANAND LAL "deceased owner, such kinsman having sprung from his kool, GURU GOBIND or stock, though of different male descent, as his own daughter's "son or his father's daughter's son, &c., or having sprung from a "different stock, as his maternal uncle, &c., is heir; and the text MAZUMDAR. (to three must libations, &c.) is intended to propound the succes"sion of such kinsmen, and the subsequent passage (to the "nearest sapinda the inheritance belongs) must be explained "as meant to discriminate them according to their degree of proximity." 66 Now, it is beyond all question that the son of a paternal uncle's daughter is a sapinda of the same description as the son of the father's daughter; and if it is once conceded, as it must be, that the word "&c." used after the words "maternal uncles" is comprehensive enough to include every relative who is competent, like the maternal uncle, to offer funeral oblations to the maternal ancestors of the deceased proprietor, we do not see any reason whatever why the same word " &c.," which is also used after the words "father's daughter's son," should not be considered as comprehensive enough to include every relative who is competent, like the father's daughter's son, to offer such oblations to his paternal ancestors. It is perfectly clear that both the texts of Menu, relied upon in this verse, are as general in their character as possible, for the name of a single heir is not mentioned in either of them. Why then are we to suppose that the author of the Dayabhaga intended to limit the operation of those texts in the case of those sapindas who are competent to offer funeral oblations. to the paternal ancestors of the deceased proprietor, at the very time when he was extending that operation to every sapinda who is competent to offer such oblations to his maternal ancestors only? Surely, if this had been the real object of the author of the Dayabhaga, in open defiance of his own construction of Menu, who is universally regarded as the highest authority on all questions of Hindu law, he would have not only expressed it in a language which could not possibly be mistaken, but he would have also assigned some reason, good, bad, or indifferent, to justify such gross departure from the very principle which he has so often declared to be the fundamental basis. |