VI. LECTURE sisters by the mother's side (n). But if it (that is, what remains from the number of the denominator of the persons not entitled to a return,*) do not quadrate, then multiply the whole case of those, who are entitled to a return, into the denominator of the share of the person not entitled to a return, and the product will be the denominator of the shares of both classes, (that is, the class entitled to a return, and that not entitled thereto,*)—as (in the instance of there being) four wives, nine daughters, and six female ancestors (o).t-Sirájiyyah, page 33. (n.) For the lowest denominator, according to the share of the person not entitled to a return, is four, out of which, if the wife receive one, there remain three, which here quadrate with the portion (=3) of the persons entitled to a return, inasmuch as the sisters by the same mother only are entitled to one-third, and the grandmothers to a sixth; consequently, two go to the sisters, and one goes to the grandmothers. But the portion of the four grandmothers being one, does not quadrate with them, and there is disagreement between them (i. e., their number and portion ;) so we reserve the number of their persons; two, the portion of the six sisters, do not likewise quadrate with their * Sharífiyyah, pages 82, 83. † Fourthly, where there are two or more classes of sharers, associated with those not entitled to claim the return,-as in the instance of a widow, four paternal grandmothers, and six sisters by the same mother only; in which case the whole estate must be divided into the smallest number of shares of which it is susceptible, consistently with giving to the person excluded from the return her share of the inheritance, (which is in this case four). Then, after the widow has taken her share, there remain three to be divided among the grandmothers and half-sisters; but the share of the grandmothers is one-sixth, and of the half-sisters one-third; and here, to give them their portions, the remainder should be made into six; but a third and a sixth of this number amount to three, which agrees with the number to be divided among them, of which the half-sisters will take two and the grandmothers Had there been only one grandmother, and only two half-sisters, there would have been no necessity for any further process, as the grandmothers would have taken one-third, and the two half-sisters the other two-thirds. But it is obvious, that two shares cannot be distributed among the six halfsisters, nor one among the four paternal grandmothers, without a fraction. To find the number into which the remainder should be made, recourse must be had to the seventh principle of distribution.—Macn. M. L., Chap. I, Sect. viii, Princ. 95. one. VI. number, but there is an agreement in half between the LECTURE number of their persons and that of their portion, so we reduce the number of the persons of those sisters into half, which amounts to three, and then we see if there is agreement between persons and persons (i.e., the grandmother and sisters,) but as we do not find it, we multiply the measure of the number of the sisters, which is three, into the whole number of the grandmothers, which is four, and the product is twelve; next we multiply this into four, which is the denominator according to the share of the person not entitled to a return, and the product gained is forty-eight, by which the case is settled: (originally,) the wife had one, which multiplied into twelve, the multiplicand, gives the identical number, the same, therefore, is given to the wife; the grandmothers also had one, which multiplied into the said multiplicand amounts to twelve; consequently, each of the grandmothers is to have three; the sisters by the mother's side had two, which multiplied into the above (multiplicand,) amounts to twenty-four; each of those (sisters) is, therefore, to have four.-Sharífiyyah, page 83. (o.) The root of this, as already mentioned, is twenty- Explafour, by reason of an eighth being mixed with two-thirds nation. and a sixth;* but this being a case of return, we convert it into eight, the lowest denominator of the share of the person not entitled to a return, and when we have given an eighth thereof to the wives, there remain seven which do not quadrate with five, which here form the root of the case of those entitled to a return, (their portions being two-thirds and one-sixth); nay, there is disagreement between them (i.e., the remaining seven and five the root of the case of those entitled to a return); consequently, the whole (number) of the case of those entitled to a return, that is five, must be multiplied into eight, the denominator of the share of the persons not entitled to a return, and the product, which is forty, is the denominator of the shares of both classes.Sharífiyyah, page 83. Now, if you wish to know the share of each of those classes from the above product, which is the denominator of *See ante, page 202, VI. * LECTURE their shares, then multiply the shares of the persons to whom no return should be made, into the case of those to whom there is a return, and the product will be the portion of the person not entitled to a return, out of the product aforesaid;* multiply also the shares of all of that class who are entitled to a return into the remainder of the denominator of the share of the persons not entitled to a return, and the product will be the portion of the class entitled to a return† (p); but as the same will not quadrate with the individuals of (each of) those classes, you must, therefore, set the case right according to the seven rules already laid downt (g) in the section on arrangement. Explanation. Expla nation. (p.) In the foregoing instance, the wives had one out of the root of the case, and we multiply it into five, which is the root of the case of those entitled to a return, and the product, amounting to five, is the portion of the wives out of forty; the nine daughters had four out of the root (=5) of the case of those entitled to a return, so when we multiply it into seven, which remained out of the denominator of the share of the persons not entitled to a return, the product will be twenty-eight, which is for them out of forty; and the female ancestors had one out of (five) the root of the case of the persons entitled to a return; so if we multiply it into seven, the product, which also is seven, is for the female ancestors. By this process, the shares of the persons not entitled to a return, as also of each of the classes entitled to a return, would quadrate.-Sharífiyyah, page 84. (q.) Thus, out of forty, in the case cited, the four wives had five (as) their portion, but there being disagreement between their persons and shares, we reserve the entire number of their persons: the nine daughters had twentyeight, but there being disagreement between their persons and shares, we leave (reserve) the number of their persons in the same state; and the portion of the six female ancestors amounting to seven, and there being disagreement between the two (ie., their persons and shares,) we take (reserve) the number of their persons entire. Then *Sharífiyyah, page 84. † Sirájiyyah, page 33. + Durr-ul-Mukhtar, page 870. VI. we see if there is agreement between persons and persons, LECTURE and we find that there is agreement in half between the persons of the female ancestors and those of the wives, so we multiply half of four into six and gain twelve, which agree in three with nine, the number of the daughters, and then we multiply a third of nine into twelve and gain thirty-six, which product also we multiply into forty, and get one thousand four hundred and forty, by which the case is adjusted as regards the shares of each class; inasmuch as, out of forty, the wives had five, which being multiplied into the multiplicand, thirty-six, the product amounts to one hundred and eighty; so there will be forty-five for each of the wives: the daughters had twenty-eight as their portion, the same being multiplied into the multiplicand in question, and the product amounting to one thousand and eight, they are to have one hundred and twelve each: the female ancestors had seven, which we multiply into the said multiplicand and the product is two hundred and fifty-two, so forty-two go to each of the female ancestors.Sharífiyyah, page 84. LECTURE VII. Prelimi nary remarks interests. ON VESTED INTERESTS-SUBTRACTION-DIVISION AMONG HEIRS AND CREDITORS, AND PARTITION. Ir a person die leaving heirs, and then if any of these heirs die before distribution of the estate leaving relatives, on vested who, or some of whom, are heirs of the first deceased, as well as of the second, or only of the second, then those heirs are considered to have vested interests in the inheritance; that is to say, those of them who are heirs of the second deceased as well as of the first, have vested interests in, and are to have shares of, the heritage of both the deceaseds; and those who are heirs only of the second deceased, have vested interests in, and are to get shares of, the heritage of the latter alone. For instance, where a land-owner died leaving a son, a daughter, and a halfbrother by the same father only; and after his death, but before partition of the estate, died the son leaving his sister, and paternal uncle, there, in the first instance, two thirds of the estate vested in the son, and one-third in the daughter; then on the death of the son, one of the two-thirds, vested in him, goes to his sister, and the other to his uncle. Thus, the daughter who is heir to both her father and brother gets two-thirds of the estate,-one-third on her father's death, and one-third on the death of her brother (the same being half of the two-thirds that were vested in, and left by, him), and the uncle gets the remaining onethird or half of the portion of his nephew, the second deceased. Eventually, therefore, the estate left by the common ancestor, the first deceased, will be divided into three parts, of which the daughter will get two-thirds,-one by right as his daughter, and another by right as his son's sister, and his brother will get the remaining one-third by right as his son's uncle and residuary heir. There are, however, cases of vested interests which are not so simple as the above by reason of several deaths occurring before |