258 LECTURE band, one to the mother, and two to each of the sisters. If VII. we take the whole of the property to amount to twentyfive dínárs, there will be a disagreement between them and the (number arising from the) arrangement, which is eight. If you, however, wish to know the share of each heir in the property left, multiply the husband's portion, which is three according to that arrangement, into the aggregate of the property, and the product will be seventy-five; then divide this product by the number of the arrangement, that is eight, and the quotient will be nine dínárs and three-eighths of a dínár, which is the portion of the husband out of the said property; multiply also the mother's share, which is one according to that arrangement, into the aggregate of the property, and the product will amount to twenty-five, then divide this by eight, and the quotient, amounting to three dínárs and one-eighth of a dínár, will be the portion of the mother out of the deceased's property: multiply likewise each sister's share, which is two, into the aggre ANNOTATIONS. and the multiplication and division proceeded on as above.-Macn. M. L., Chap. I, Sect. xi, Princ. 110. If these numbers appear to be prime to each other, the rule is, that the share of each set of heirs must be multiplied into the number of the assets, and the result divided by the number of the shares into which it was found necessary to make the estate.* If the numbers are composit, the rule is, that the share of each set of heirs must be multiplied into the measure of the number of the assets, and the result divided by the measure of the number of shares into which it was found necessary to make the estate.†-Macn. M. L., Chap. I, Sect. xi, Princ. 108. *For instance, a man dies leaving a widow, two daughters, and a paternal uncle, and property to the amount of 25 rupees. In this case, the estate should be originally divided into 24, of which the widow is entitled to 3, the daughters to 16, and the uncle to 5. Now to ascertain to what shares of the estate left, these heirs are entitled, the above rule must be observed. Thus, 3 x 25 75, and 16 x 25 400, and 5×25 125; but 75243, and 400241614, and 125 24 5.-Macn. M. L., Chap. I, Sect. xi, Princ. 108. = For instance, a man dies, leaving the same number of heirs as above, and property to the amount of 50 rupees. Now, as 24 and 50 agree in 2, the measure of both numbers is half. Thus 3×25: 75, and 16×25 400, and 5×25 = 125, but 75-12=6%, and 400÷1233, and 125 ÷ 12 = 10.-Ibid., Princ. = = VII. gate of the property, and the product will amount to fifty, LECTURE then divide this product by eight, and the quotient, six díuárs and one-fourth of a dínár, will be each sister's share in the property left by the deceased.—Sharífiyyah, page 72. CXXXVIII. But if there is an agreement be- Principle. tween the arrangement and the property left, then multiply the portion of each heir according to the arrangement into the measure of the property, and divide the product by the measure of the number (arising from the arrangement*): the quotient will be the portion of that heir in both methods (h).Sirájiyyah, page 30. (h.) As, in the above case or example, if the property Explanaleft by the deceased amount to fifty dínárs (instead of twenty- tion. five), or there be concordance between them, as in the above example, and the property amount to twenty-four dínárs, then, in both these cases, the portion of each heir according to that arrangement, which is prime, must be multiplied into the aggregate of the property, and the product divided by the number of the arrangement, as is done in the case of disagreement, and thereby the share of this heir in the property, which is the subject of distribution, will be separated. Let this, however, be known to you, that when there is no fraction in the property of the deceased, then the rule above laid down will apply; but when there is a fraction therein, then it will be necessary to increase or expand the property, in order that it be of one and the same kind, and the mode of expanding is, that the integral number of the property left be multiplied into the denominator of the fraction, then the fraction be added to the product, and after that, the number of the arrangement also be multiplied into the denominator of the fraction of the property, then the two products be worked out by multiplication and division, and the quotient will be the portion of each heir. Thus, if, in the above-mentioned case, it be supposed that the property left amounted to twenty-five dínárs, and one-third of a dínár, then we must multiply twentyfive into the denominator of one-third, which is three, and * Sharífiyyah, page 72. VII. : LECTURE the product gained will be seventy-five, to which being added the one-third (aforesaid), the aggregate amounts to seventy-six then, if we multiply also (the number) eight, by which the case is arranged, into three, the product will be twenty-four; next, if we multiply the portion which each heir had, out of eight, into seventy-six, and divide the same by twenty-four, the quotient will be the portion of that heir, as if the property had (originally) amounted to the integral number seventy-six (dínárs), and the root of the case, to twenty-four.-Sharífiyyah, page 73. Principle. Exa ple. CXXXIX. Next, in order to know the portion of each set, you must multiply what each set has according to the root of the case, into the measure of the property left, then divide the product by the measure (of the arrangement*) of the case, if there be an agreement between the property left and (the arrangement of*) the case (i); but, if there be a disagreement between them, then you must multiply (what was the portion of each set*) into the whole of the property left, and divide the product by the whole number (arising from the arrangement) of the case; and the quotient will be the portion of that set in both methods [that is agreement and disagreement* (j.)]-Sirájiyyah, page 30. (i.) The exemplification and illustration of the case of agreement (are as follow):— A husband, four sisters of the whole blood, and two sisters by the same mother only (being left by a woman, her surviving,) originally the division was by six, which is the root of the case, and which is (here) increased to nine.t Now if we suppose the property left to amount to thirty (dínárs or the like), there is between the (number of.the) property and (that of the) arrangement an agreement in three; so if we multiply the husband's portion, which is three, from the root of the case, into the measure of the * Sharífiyyah, page 74. pro VII. perty, which is ten, the product will be thirty, and if we LECTURE divide this product by one-third of the root of the case, which also is three, the quotient is ten, which is the portion of the husband, and if we multiply the whole sister's portion, which is four, into one-third of the property, the product will amount to forty; and then if we divide the same by one-third of the root of the case, the quotient will be thirteen (and one-third) which is the share of those sisters; next, if we multiply the share of the two sisters by the same mother only, which is two, into one-third of the property, the product will amount to twenty;, then if we divide the same by one-third of the root of the case, the quotient will be six and two-thirds, which is the portion of those two sisters.-Sharífiyyah, page 74. The case of tadákhul (concordance) is like that of tawafuk (agreement). (j.) The example of the case of disagreement (tabáyun) Further is, that in the above-mentioned case (of agreement) if you example. suppose the property to be thirty-two (dínárs), then there, would be a disagreement between this and (the number of) the arrangement, which is nine; consequently, we must multiply the husband's share, which is three, into the whole of the property, and the product will be ninety-six; then we must divide this number by the whole of the root of the case, which is nine, and the quotient, which is ten and two-thirds, will be the portion of the husband out of the property in question; we must also multiply the share of the sisters of the whole blood, which amounts to four, into the whole of the property, and the product will be one hundred and twenty-eight, and then divide this product by nine, the quotient, amounting to twenty-four and two-ninths, will be the portion of the sisters by both parents from the property aforesaid; we must likewise multiply the share of the two sisters by the same mother only into the whole of the property, and the product will be sixty-four, then divide this product by nine, and the quotient, amounting to seven and one-ninth, will be the portion of those two (sisters) from the supposed amount of the property left.Sharífiyyah, page 74. CXL. As to the payment of debts, the debt Principle to each of the creditors stands in the place of the of diviportion of each heir (in the process of working dends. LECTURE out,*) and the debts to all the creditors stand in the VII. place of the arranging number ().t-See Sirájiyyah, Arabic, page 31. Explanation. (1.) If the deceased's property, remaining after (defrayment of the expenses of) the funeral ceremony and burial, be sufficient for (the liquidation of) the debts, there is no difficulty, as (in that case) every one of the creditors will have his due in full; but if it be not sufficient for (satisfying) the number of the creditors, then the mode of knowing ANNOTATIONS. cxl. As to the payment of debts, if (the property be) sufficient, it is well, if it be not sufficient, and there be a number of creditors, then the whole of the debts is (to be taken) as the arranging number, and the debt owing to each creditor is to stand as the share of each heir; and you must work out as already mentioned.-Durr-ul-Mukhtár, page 778. In a distribution of assets among creditors, the rule is, that the aggregate sum of their debts must be the number into which it is necessary to make the estate, and the sum of each creditor's claim must be considered as his share. For instance, supposing the debt of one creditor to amount to 16 rupees, of another to 5, and of another to 3, and the debtor to have left property to the amount of 21 rupees. By observing the same process as that laid down in principle (109), it will be found that the creditor to whom the debt of 16 rupees was due, is entitled to 14 rupees, the creditor of 5 rupees, to 4 rupees 6 annas, and the creditor of 3 rupees, to 2 rupees 10 annas.-Macn. M. L., Chap. I, Sect. xi, Princ. 111. * Sharífiyyah, page 74. It seems needless to give examples of the simple rules for ascertaining the dividends of each class; but the passage concerning creditors, at the close of the chapter, is made obscure by extreme brevity, and requires a short illustration. Suppose the assets of Amru to be nine pieces of gold; his debts, five pieces to Saad, and ten to Ahmed; here the aggregate of the debts, fifteen, is composit to nine, and their measures are five and three; so that, by the rule before mentioned of distribution among heirs, Ahmed will receive six, and Saad, three pieces; but, had the debtor left thirteen, which would have been prime to the amount of both debts, then fifteen, standing in the place of the verification, as they call it, must be the divisor of the several products, arising from the multiplication of ten and five into thirteen, and the quotient 83 and 4 will be the respective dividends of Ahmed and Saad.-Note by Sir W. Jones, page 88. |