cannot get their portions without a fraction, and that some of the sets are mootuwafiq, or composit, with each other; as in the case of four wives, eighteen daughters, fifteen female ancestors, and six paternal uncles; in which case, according to principle 66, the original division must be by 24. Here in the first place, a comparison must be made between the several sets and their respective shares. Thus the share of the four wives is an eighth; but an eighth of 24 is 3, and three compared with the number of wives is mootubayun, or prime. The share of the eighteen daughters is two-thirds; but two-thirds of 24 is 16, and 16 compared with the number of daughters 18, is composit, and they agree in 2. The share of the fifteen female ancestors is one-sixth; but a sixth of 24 is 4, and 4 compared with the number of female ancestors 15, is prime. The remaining share, which is one, will devolve on the six paternal uncles as residuaries; but one and six are prime.

Then the rule is, that the sets of heirs themselves must be compared; by the whole where the preceding result shows that they were prime, and by their measure, where it shows that they were composit. Thus 4X2-9-1, which being prime, the one number must be multiplied by the other. This result must then be compared with the whole of the third set; because the preceding result shows that set to have been prime Thus 15 X2-36-6 and 6-15-9 and 6-9-3, which agreeing in 3, the third of one number, must be multiplied into the whole of the other. This result must also be compared with the whole of the fourth set; because the preceding result shows that set to have been prime. Thus 6×30-180, which being concordant, or agreeing in six, the sixth of one number must be multiplied into the whole of the other, but as it is obvious that by this process the result would still be the same, multiplication is needless. Then this result must be multiplied into

the number of the original division. Thus 180×24= 4320, of which the four wives will get an eighth, five hundred and forty, or one hundred and thirty-five each; the eighteen daughters two-thirds, two thousand eight hundred and eighty, or one hundred and sixty each; the female ancestors one-sixth, seven hundred and twenty, or forty-eight each; and the paternal uncles the remaining one hundred and eighty, or thirty each.

81. The seventh and last is when, on a comparison Seventh prin ciple. of the different sets of heirs, it appears that all the sets are mootubayun, or prime, and no one of them agrees with the other; as in the case of two wives, six female ancestors, ten daughters, and seven paternal uncles. Here according to principle 66, the original division must be by 24.

In the first instance, a comparison must be made between the several sets of heirs and their respective shares. Thus the share of the two wives is one-eighth; but the eighth of 24 is 3, and 3 compared with the number of wives is prime. The share of the six female ancestors is one-sixth; but the sixth of 24 is 4, and 4 compared with the number of female ancestors, is composit, or agrees in two. The share of the ten daughters is two-thirds; and two-thirds of 24 is 16, and 16 compared with the number of daughters is also composit, or agrees in two. The remaining share, which is one, will devolve on the seven paternal uncles; but 1 and 7 are prime.

Then the rule is, that the sets of heirs themselves must be compared; by the whole where the preceding result shows that they were prime, and by the half or other measure, where it shows that they were composit. Agreeably to this rule the whole of the first set of heirs must be compared with half of the second: thus 2=3 -1, which numbers being prime must be multiplied

Rule for as

heirs.

into each other. Then the result must be compared next set, the former result here also

with the half of the

having agreed in 2.

Thus 5-6-1, which being prime,

must be multiplied into each other. Then the result must be compared with the whole of the next set, the former result here having been prime. Thus 7×4= 30-2x3=7-1, which being also prime, must be multiplied into each other. Thus 30×7-210, in which case the rule is, that this last product must be multiplied into the number of the original division. Thus 210 × 24-5040, of which the wives will take an eighth, six hundred and thirty, or three hundred and fifteen each; the female ancestors a sixth, eight hundred and forty, or one hundred and forty each; the daughters twothirds, three thousand three hundred and sixty, or three hundred and thirty-six each; and the paternal uncles the remaining two hundred and ten, or thirty each.

82. When the whole number of shares, into which an certaining the shares of dif- estate should be made, has been found, the mode of asferent sets of certaining the number of portions to which each set of heirs is entitled, is to multiply the portions originally assigned them,by the same number by which the aggregate of the original portions was multiplied; as an easy example of which rule the following case may be mentioned. There are a widow, eight daughters, and four paternal uncles; the shares of the two first sets being one-eighth and two-thirds, the estate, according to principle 66, must be made originally into 24 parts, of which the widow is entitled to 3, the daughters to 16, and there remain 5 to be divided among the four paternal uncles, but which cannot be done without a fraction. Here the proportion between the shares and the heirs who cannot get their portions without a fraction, must be ascertained, and 4-5-1, being prime, the rule is, (see No. 77,) to multiply the number of the original division

by the whole number of the heirs so situated. Thus 24 × 4-96. Here to find the shares of each set multiply what each was originally declared entitled to, by the number by which the aggregate of all the original portions was multiplied. Thus 3×4-12, the share of the widow; 16×4=64, the share of the daughters; and 5×4-20, the share of the paternal uncles.

individual of the different

83. To find the portion of each individual in the se- Rule for ascertaining the veral sets of heirs, ascertain how many times the number shares of each of persons in each set may be multiplied into the number of shares ultimately assigned to each set. Thus 8x sets of heirs, 8=64, and 5×4-20. Here eight will be the share of each daughter, and four the share of each paternal uncle, which, with the twelve which formed the share of the widow, will make up the required number ninety-six.

SECTION VI.

Of exclusion from and partial surrender of Inheritance.

tions of exclu

84. Exclusion is either entire or partial. By entire Two descrip exclusion is meant, the total privation of right to in- sion. herit. By partial exclusion is meant, a diminution of the portion to which the heir would otherwise be entitled. Entire exclusion is brought about by some of the personal disqualifications enumerated in principle (6), or by the intervention of an heir, in default of whom a claimant would have been entitled to take, but by rea- Explanation son of whose intervention he has no right of inheritance.

per

85. Those who are entirely excluded by reason of sonal disqualification, do not exclude other heirs, either entirely or partially; but those who are excluded by rea

son of some intervening heir, do in some instances partially exclude others.

of

In what case an entirely. excluded heir partially excludes others.

Example.

Rules where one of the

86. For instance, a man dies, leaving a father, a mother, and two sisters, who are infidels. Here the mother will get her third, notwithstanding the existence of the two infidel sisters, who are excluded by reason of their personal disqualification; but had they not been infidels, she would only have been entitled to a sixth although the sisters, who partially exclude her, are themselves entirely excluded by reason of the intervention of the father.

87. If one of the heirs choose to surrender his portion beirs makes a of the inheritance for a consideration, still he must be partial surren- included in the division. Thus in the case of there be

der of his

right.

Definition of the increase..

ing a husband, a mother, and a paternal uncle, the shares are one-half and one-third. Here according to principle 64, the property must be made into six shares; of which the husband was entitled to three, the mother to two, and the paternal uncle, as a residuary, to the remaining one. Now supposing the estate left to amount to six lacks of Rupees, and the husband to content himself with two, still as far as affects the mother, the division must be made as if he had been a party and of the remaining four lacks the mother must get two; otherwise, were he not made a party, the mother would get only one-third of four, instead of one-third of six lacks as her legal share, and the remainder would go to the uncle as residuary.

SECTION VII.

Of the increase.

88. The increase is where there are a certain number of legal sharers, each of whom is entitled to a specific portion, and it is found, on a distribution of the shares into which it is necessary to make the estate, that there is not a sufficient number to satisfy the just demands of all the claimants.