This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1871. Excerpt: ... For it is upon this principle that she is preferred to his divided brothers in the succession to a separate estate. But it is perfectly intelligible that, upon the principle of survivorship, the right of co-parcerneis in an undivided estate should over-ride the widow's right of succession, whether based upon the spiritual doctrine, or upon the doctrine of survivorship. It is, therefore, on the principle of survivorship, that the qualification of the widow's right established by the MUaksharu, whatever be its extent, must be taken to depend. If this lie so, we can hardly, in a doubtful case, and in the absence of positive authority, extend the rule beyond the reasons for it. According to the principles of Hindu, Law, there is co-parccnaryship, between the different members of a united family, and survivorship following upon it. There is community of interest and unity of possession between all the members of the family; and upon the death of any one i them, the others may well take by survivorship that in which they had during the deceased's lifetime a common interest and a common possession. But the law of partition shows that, as to the separately acquired property of one member of a united family, the other members of that family have neither community of interest nor uniiy of possession. The foundation, therefore, of a right to take such property by survivorship, fails; and there are no grounds for postponing the widow's right to inherit it to any superior right of the co-parceners in the undivided property. Again, the theory which would restrict the perference of the co-pirceners over the widows to partible property is not only, as is shown above, founded upon an intelligible principle, but reconciles the law of inheritance with the law of partition....