Yagnuvulkyu, and Vishnoo, and examined and weighed the sense deducible from the context, the author offers his opinion on the subject. “By this text, [by the seven texts of Vrihusputi, and by the text of Yagnuvulkyu,] relating to the order of succession, the right of the widow, to succeed in the first instance, is declared” “Therefore, the widow’s right must be affirmed to extend to the whole estate.” (p. 161.)
16. The same author afterwards notices, in page 163, several texts of a seemingly contrary nature, but to which he does not hesitate to give a reconciling interpretation, without retracting or modifying his own decision. He quotes Sunkhu and Likhitu, Peitheenusi, and Yum, as declaring, “The wealth of a man who departs for heaven, leaving no male issue, goes to his brothers. If there be none, his father and mother take it; or his eldest wife, or a kinsman, a pupil, or a fellow student.” Pursuing a train of long and able discussion, the author ventures to declare the subordinacy of the latter passage to the former, as the conclusion best supported by reason, and most conformable to the general tenor of the law. He begins saying, (P. 169,) “From the text of Vishnoo and the rest, (Yagnuvulkyu and Vrihushputi,) it clearly appears, that the succession devolves on the widow, by failure of sons and other [male] descendants, and this is reasonable; for the estate of the deceased should go first to the son, grandson, and great grandson.” He adds, in page 170, pointing out the ground on which the priority of a son’s claim is founded, a ground which is applicable to the widow’s case also, intimating the superiority of a window’s claim to that of a brother, a father, &c.” So Munoo declares the right of inheritance
