ON THE HINDOO LAW. 39
our estimation it is not absolute, but contingent. The law is simply "after her death let the heirs take it." So with us it is said "inheritance shall lineally descend to the issue of the person, who last died, actually seized", but does not therefore render it imperative that the property must be transmitted to the heirs. The rule in either case applies to property left, and cannot be said to give to the reversioners a right or control over the acts of the possessor.
Again who are these reversioners whom the learned Judge is so anxious to protect? and in answering this question we do not wish to dispute the equity, but the necessity, of their being made the objects of legal protection. Where a widow inherits as sole heir, there can be no nearer heir than a daughter, who in the constitution of Hindu society, we may be well assured, is married or will be at the mother's charge: she is therefore in her own person provided for, and if the property goes to her, it is transferred to another family, unconnected probably by name or descent with that of the deceased. In this case we should think it very immaterial whether the integral inheritance was preserved or not, as far as the interests of general society, the only interests that should be looked to, are concerned.
If there be no daughter nor daughter's sons, the estate will go to the husband's brothers: here it remains in the family, but what necessity is there for the apportionment? The brothers should not be in want, as they have already divided during the life
