enseats real legitimate son. Thus, the sea of the wife, the son giyan, and the rest, receive the share prescribed for them by the general law. For grounds for contracting the operation of the same are wanting; not does the particular pass in quotion, obstruct its opentions to, that relates to a different subject. Accordingly, their right to inherit is clearly laid down in the preceding passage-"take shares of the heritage.”—Noreen it be said, they participate (merely) in the estate, otheethan the empire. For the empire also is treated of in the passage in question, 'The exclusion of the son of the twice married woman, and the rest, from empire, although each preceding in order may have failed, is in virtue of a distinct provision in respect to them—D. Ch. Sect, V. § 26–28. - ; * The mode, however, of partition, between the son of 碼 wife, the son giம, வல் the rest, , and the legitimate son, which has been propounded in what preceded, does not apply to the sitdra tribe.—Since, in the following texts of Mass and Jávnyavalyałys respectively, a share, equal to that of the real legitimate son, is prescribed for the son, even by a female slave, of a man of the class in question, and the co-heirship, with the daughter's son, of such son, only when having no brother, is intimated, the equal partition of the son of the wife, the son given, and the rest, with the real legitimate son, while the father lives, and their succession to the moiety of the share of such son, where the father may be dead at the time of partition, follow a fortioriAnd otherwise, there would be a great inconsistency, is, where the son of the wife, the son given, and the rest, took the fourth of the share of the legitimate son, the son by a female slave, whose title is infinitely interior in respect to these, were to take an equal share with the legiti. mate son. Mans:—“But a son, begotten by a man of the servile class, on his female slave, or on the female slave of his male slave, may, by permission, take a share of the heritage. Thus is the law established.”—Jágnyaralkya—“Even a son, begotten by a sisdra on a ཨཱ་སམ་ slave, may by the father's choice. But if the father be dead, the brethren should make him partaker of the moiety of a share, and one who has no brothers, may inherit the whole property; on défault of daughter's sons.” If according to this authority, where there may be no son of the wise, and the rest, but there may be a wife and daughter, the daughter's son be entitled to share, (with the on by a female slave,) the rule for the succession of the daughter (or other proper heir) would be infringed; therefore, if any even, in the series of heirs down to the daughter's son, exist, the son by a female slave does not take the whole estate, but on the contrary, shares equally with such heir. Accordingly, the text subjoined, must be construed as referring merely to the eitsdras:-"A son given being thus adopted, if by any chance a legitimate son hould be born, let them be equal partakers of the father's estate.” So also in the following the equal participation of all lawfully begotten si4dra, having been filst propounded, the to equal shares, of the other sons likewise, is subsequently declared by the sentence, (“if there be an hundred sons") occurring therein. “For a sićdra is ordained awife of his own class, and no other. Those begotten on her, shall have equal shares; if there bean hundred sons (the same mode of partition shall obtain.)” If the sentence in question be referred to the real legitimate дой onloor-ition contained :فسمعه يلي from what procedea, ita repetition would be ioning-D. Ch. Sect. W.' 29-08. . . . . . . . . ..." . . . . . ! ... on the strength othe ن cited, the author of the Pataie-Chandrić recognises the heritable right of the son of a female slave, and then by parity of reasoning he holds that—while the faths lives, asionataka shares equally with the legitimately begotian son; and a moiety, vir waar as waai-mis wwwe eie wat klantia reis as afs Remark,
