22 Mr. MAYNK on the Administration of Native Law 



dual exertions will fall into the bulk of the family property. 

 This is evidently the strictest, and therefore the oldest 

 form of corporate union. 



In Southern India, the rule is more relaxed. The normal 

 condition of the family is still non-division, and as regards 

 all landed property, not only a man's sons, but his grand- 

 sons, and great-grandsons are actually co-proprietors with 

 him, and have a vested interest during his life. But, unlike 

 the law of Malabar, the father may dispose of his moveable 

 property as he likes, and his self-acquired property will not 

 merge into the general family fund, but will go direct to his 

 lineal descendants in preference to collaterals. Further, any 

 one of the co -sharers, lineal or collateral, may at any time 

 break up the family union by calling for his own share. 



The Bengal law goes still further. A man's sons are 

 merely his heirs, but in no sense his co-proprietors, even as 

 to property which he has himself inherited. He may alienate 

 some (it is not settled how much) of his ancestral landed 

 property without their assent, and if he alienates more than 

 he ought, the act seems to be merely improper, and not 

 illegal. His sons cannot compel him to come to a division, 

 even of the property which he has derived from his ances- 

 tors ; and if he does divide it, he is entitled to a double 

 share. A man's widow takes his property in Bengal, in pre- 

 ference to his collateral relations ; whereas in Southern In- 

 dia she takes nothing but a right to maintenance, unless her 

 husband was divided. 



This is not the place, nor indeed have I the materials, to 

 discuss the causes by which these remarkable changes were 

 brought about. But it is evident, that as the law of South- 

 ern India is more favourable to energy and progress than 

 that of Malabar, so the law of Bengal is more favourable 

 than that of Southern India, and that the law of Bengal is, 



