vYAğ'AsqR&DARPANA. foss 攤 "The che passage of the Hiddo livvi which theosotion to the widow's right, in the either ds. afteel, of us a constreative pregnancy, is directly based, is the following, which is noticed-in; the two eates," and of which a translities issukoined from Colebrooke's translation of the onseilâwas, “They who are born, they who are yet unbegostan, and they who are (actually) in the womb, all require the means of support; and the dissipation of their hereditary maintenance is censured.” Upon this passage, it has been contended, on behalf of the widow, that it preseribes a moral duty rather than a legal obligation; as, were it held to be of strictlogorse, it would militate against the admitted right of a Hindoo father in Bengal to dispose ofoproperty according to his own choice by will,” it, apart from this, it is to be observed that the very terms of the text, providing for sons yousovodes, refer to a contigent and future, and not too present rightt...In perfect consistenoy with this, we find that the right accruing to an after-born son, in regard to real ancestral property, is thus described in the same treatise.” ... “That is declared by Kieław, 'sons, with whom the father has made a partition, should gives share to the son born after the distribution.’ Jáyxyavaliya :-"When the sous have been separated one afterwards bors; of a woman equal in class, shares in the distribution. His allotment must positively he made out of the visible estate, corrected for income and expenditure.”to o A strong illustration to the same effect is to be drawn from the law of partition, according to the Mitääkará, in which it is laid down,d Chap, WI, Scots, ll andl2,) that if the pregnancy of a brother's widow be thanifest at the time of an intended partition, the pattition should be postponed till after the delivery. Some commentators hold the sense of the passage-to be that partition may at once . but that a share should be set apart for the widow who is supposed to be pregnant, and, when so is delivered, the share is to be assigned to her on, and this interpretation is rejected by others, chiefly because, according to the law of the Western schools in regard to an estate still undivided, 'widows are not entitled to participate as heirs.' ... ... ." . .
- Ranee Kishenmunee's case, above referred to, Reports, vol. III, pp. 228–281. § Ramkishen Surkeyl's case, ditto, page 867. 暢
+ The 醬 of an yet unbegotten son, though it may in a manner be called 'contingent or future," is similar to that of a posthumous son; so the heritable right to the property of the adoptive father must, as a matter of course, vest in the adopted son as soon as he is adopted; but if, according to the holding of the learned Judges, the right had already vested in the widow, it could not again vest in the son,--s long as the widow is not divested of it; for our law is that a right being once vested in one, that person cannot be deprived of it before his or her death, natural or civil, or voluntary abandonment. The result of the above finding would, however, be that an ad son, when ado shallonot be vested with his father's property, ချို့ it is provided by the law that it must devolve upon him immediately on his being but that the widow shall continue to hold it in preference to, and to the exclusion of, the son, the and foremost of the heirs. This is as illegal and as any thing can ot. & VII. Seco. 11 to 12. See also the Dáyakranaesngraha, as to ht accruing to sons aఫీ . Chap, W. Sect. 21 to 24. Ιλάy 2- : rig 葛 But this is the subject of an altogether different chapter, which refers to the partition of the the sons in existence, and provides for 醬 conceived but mot known, or conceived and born, layi င္ဆိုႏိုင္တို that sons should not divide the patrimony whilst there is a probability of another son being , but if they nevertheless divide it, they must, in that case, contribute portions from their respective shares to make up the share of their after-born. brother. Thus as the chapter in question does not treat of the inheritance of a widow, whose right is: imited to a restricted life interesk and who, being as she is entitled only where there is no son, son's son, or son's grandson in themale line, can by on means have a heritable right where a posthumous son ಬ್ಲೀಷಿಸಿ;ಷ್ಮಿಜಿಷಿಷ್ಮ;ಷಷ above down. The judgment of the latter (ost of commentators) must be pronounced to be, eons, inas
- $షిహిష్క్రి స్గి widow is not received in her right, but as a guardian, or presis in soie, for the be Ver $o-be som. ($• •*, p. 1042.) Th*refore,£he eircum哆 缓 joint or divided being no bar to the inheritance and participation of a son, the
terprotation given by the first set of cohmentators is only right, 95
£he
- skate
being 瓣
