These relations take in that order each excluding the relations that are mentioned later in order. Thus if there is daughter, then the succeeding entries: daughter’s son, mother etc. would be excluded. Wife would exclude the daughter and the rest.
The daughter’s son was not specifically mentioned in Yajnavalkya’s text but was brought in by a process of interpretation by Vijnaneswara, the famous commentator.
The Brother’s son’s son was also not specifically mentioned in the text but was brought in by the interpretation of the Privy Council in Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh, 37 All. 604 (PC), where Ameer Ali, J., delivered a famous judgment on this subject.
One of the main purposes of the Hindu Succession Act is to supersede the compact series of heirs by a new order of intestate succession. Thus, Class I heirs include the following heirs of the compact series: wife, daughter, mother, son of predeceased daughter. In Class II heirs are included father, brother and brother’s son. Among agnates brother’s son’s son would be included. In this way the compact series has been broken up and rearranged.
Secondly, the rule of Yajnavalkya that among the compact series of heirs the earlier enumerated will exclude those who are enumerated later has been swept away. Now a number of heirs succeed together. For instance, the inheritance is divided among all the Class I heirs.
These are the vital changes brought about by legislation in the compact series of heirs.