writings, such as the institutes of Munoo and of others, esteemed sacred by Hindoos, are the foundation of the law of inheritance. 2ndly. Vignaneshwur (author of the Mitakshura) is but a commentator on those writings. 3rdly. Therefore, such part of the commentatry of Vignaneshwur as indiscriminately entitles all brothers to an equal share, being obviously at variance with the precepts of Munoo found on the subject, should be rejected, and the best and the largest portion of the heritage be allotted to the eldest brother, by judicial authorities; according to the letter of the sacred text. Again, take the Mitakshura, Ch. I. Sec. i. Art. 30 p. 257. “The following passage, ‘Separated kinsmen, as those who are unseparated, are equal in respect of immoveables, for one has not power over the whole to make a gift, sale, or mortgage;’ must be thus interpreted: ‘Among unseparated kinsmen, the consent of all is indispensably requisite, because no one is fully empowered to make an alienation, since the estate is in common;’ but among separated kindred, the consent of all tends to the facility of the transaction, by obviating any future doubt, whether they be separate or united: it is not required, on account of any want of sufficient power in the single owner, and the transaction is consequently valid even without the consent of separated kinsmen.” Ditto, Ch. I. Sec. ii. Art. 28, page 316. “‘The legitimate son is the sole heir of his father’s estate; but, for the sake of innocence, he should give a maintenance to the rest.’ This text of Munoo must be considered as applicable to a case, where the adopted sons (namely, the son given and the rest) are disobedient to the legitimate son and devoid of good qualities.”
