1. For the purposes of safeguarding the executors, it is necessary to determine upon such evidence as has been laid before me who is the heir or are the heirs of the deceased Ramdas. The evidence in support of the pedigree is not very convincing but considering the remoteness of the relationship, I think it may be accepted.
2. On the record here, there are three claimants to be the heirs of Ramdas, viz., Parvatibai, Fulkorebai and Bai Mani. Had Bai Mani been the heir, a difficulty would have arisen, because the evidence shows that she has two sisters (not upon the record) who would have been equally entitled with herself. But the relationship established and shown upon the pedigree makes it clear that Bai Mani and her two sisters, claiming through the uncle of Amrat, the mother of Ramdas, cannot be closer than Matribandhus and must be postponed upon any view of the Hindu text and decided authorities to the other two claimants Parvatibai and Fulkorebai.
3. Fulkorebai is the widow of Lakhmichand, who was the son of Avalbai, who was the daughter of Dada, who was the brother of Karsondas, the grandfather of Ramdas. Farvatibai is the daughter of Avalbai and sister-in-law of Fulkorebai. Both these ladies appear to be within the degree of sapindaship, though their connection with the gotra of the deceased Ramdas is broken by the interposition of their mother Avalbai. They must, therefore, be regarded as Pitribandhus, and, as I understand the course of the decisions in this Presidency, in the absence of any other competitors and being within live degrees of the deceased Ramdas, one or other of them must certainly be the heir. Under the decision of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Saguna v. Sadashiv ILR (1902) 26 Bom. 710, it would be a question of great nicety and difficulty to decide which of these two ladies under the law of this Presidency is to be preferred. In order to avoid that difficulty and the protracted litigation which its removal might involve, the two ladies have come to an agreement between themselves, and I can see no objection to giving effect to that agreement and allowing their joint and several receipts to be regarded as a legal and valid discharge of the executors. It cannot be doubted, I think, that one or the other of these ladies is the heir and entitled to the estate of Ramdas. So their joint and several receipts ought to be a sufficient discharge of all the responsibilities and liabilities of the executors.