It was held that the doctrine of representation was applicable and that D1 and D2 together take one share while Â alone would take one share. Thus, the son of a pre-deceased son of the Propositus (i.e., deceased owner) can claim the right of representation. So also the sons of a predeceased son of a pre-deceased son.
Under the Hindu Law prior to 1956 no one else could claim the benefit of the doctrine of representation.
Change Made in 1956:
Under the Act of 1956 the principle of representation has been extended. It is now applicable also to the daughter of a predeceased son, daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, son of a pre-deceased daughter and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter.
Thus, now the daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, though remoter, can claim along with a daughter. Suppose there are: one daughter and four daughters of a predeceased daughter. Then the daughter takes one share while all the four daughters of the pre-deceased daughter will collectively take one share in the right of their pre-deceased mother.
How the principle of representation is to be applied is stated in rules 3 and 4 of s. 10. Each son and daughter and each pre-deceased Son and pre-deceased daughter is taken as a distinct branch to each of which one share is to be allotted.
The share of the pre-deceased daughter is distributed among her surviving children. The share of a predeceased son is distributed among his surviving children and widow and a share is also allotted out of that share to the branch of the predeceased son of the pre-deceased son.