In 1870 the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court was called on to determine “whether under the Hindu Law current in the Bengal School, the son of a paternal uncle's daughter is entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased Hindu, if no nearer heirs are forthcoming.” If he was, the property should be his; if not, the property should revert to the Crown.

The answer to this question depended on whether or not Jīmūtavāhana's Dāyabhāga, the highest authority on inheritance in Bengal (see Rocher 1972: 167–176), recognized the paternal uncle's daughter's son as an heir. It was clear that it did not do so explicitly. A further question was then raised, namely whether the order of succession discussed in the Dāyabhāga was meant to be exhaustive, or whether the text merely provided general principles to be applied in the light of specific circumstances. The Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice D.N. (Dwarkanath) Mitter, decided in favor of the latter alternative: the paternal uncle's daughter's son qualifies as an heir, for he ranks among the sapiṇḍas as defined by Jīmūtavāhana (on the uncertainty of the law prior to 1870, see Mitra 1881: 77–78).