The Calcutta Law Journal. October & November 1933

Now the law relating to the herit ability of bandhus in the Mitakshara School and the order of succession amongst them were in a state of great obscurity almost chaotic until the researches of Pundit Rajkumar succeeded in evolving a rational and consistent system out of the slender materials to be found in Vijnaneswara's commentary. [...] Bhattacharjya and by eminent judges like Sir Ramesh Chandra and Sir Guru Das but also approved by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should still be the subject of futile criticisms at the hands of writers who are incapable of taking the jurist's broad and comprehensive view of reading between the lines of the statements of Vijnaneswara about " Bandhus " and their succession. [...] Besides refering to the authority of Ghosh and Sircar the learned Judge is wrong in treating the dictum in Umaid Bahadoor's case (2) as merely an obiter ; in holding that the " line " theory has not received the approval of the Judicial Committee and in holding that the question did not arise in Babu Lars case (3). [...] The reasons why Sarvadhikari did not follow blindly the text of Satatapa quoted in the Mitakshara have been fully explained by the author himself; and the writer of this criticism in editing the work has also ventured to point out in pages 625 et seq of the end Edition that (01. [...] We think we have said enough to show that the decision of the Madras High Court in the above case on both the points viz (r) whether in the Madras Presidency in the ab sence of agnate kinsmen of the husband a widow can make a valid adoption with the consent of her husband's cognate kinsmen and (2) whether Heritable bandhus in the Mitakshara school are confined to certain particular lines" or