VYAVASTHA-AARPANA. i ()02 and an uterine brother named Gobindprosad; in the same year hioidow brought forth a daughter, who was named Ganga Mya. The widow died in 1807 B. S. Gunya Mys, in the year 1217 B. S., was married to a person called Ramkesob Dutt, Gobindprosad, the original proprietor's brother, died in the year 1218 B.S., leaving Kitkenhelore a son, and Dayanye a daughter. In the year 1226 B. S., Ramkesol, Dutt, the husband of Gunga Mya, died childless. Whether, on the death of the original proprietor, was his widow Bhugovuttv, or his brother Gobindprosad, entitled to inherit his estate If the widow was the proper heir, whether was Gobindprosaul f or her daughter Gunga Mya entitled to inherit the estate on her death If the daughter was the proper heir, and if she by consent of her husband adopted a son, was such adopted son entitled to inherit the estate on her death; and if he was not, who was the proper heir on whom the estate should devolve after the death of Gunga Mya? R. On the death of Sheonath, his property belonged, of right, to his widow Bhugovutty, Ancestral preparty In Hot to hi brothe Goodgr೦೦; to be et of in wholeaving mother heir!!!!" down to a great grandson, devolves by the law of inheritance on his widow. On the death of not at her death a Bhugovutty, the cstate which she had inherited from her husband should devolve on her daughter!!"," ndopted κοι, - - liut to the lieur" ol who was unmarried at the time of her husband's death, and not on the boother of Sheonath; for, her father. by the law of inheritance, of the three descriptions of daughters, that is, the unmarried daughter, she whose husband is living, and of whom there is probability of a son being born, and the daughter who has borne a son, the first mentioned has the best title to the succession, in lesult of other preferable heirs; but the son adopted by Gunga Mya, by the consent of her husband, has no title to the estate to which the had succeeded, because, according to the Dáyahága, an adopted son har no legal claim to the property of a bandhu or cognate; and according to the interpretation of the text of Manu, which admits adopted sons to the right of succession collater. ally, the meaning is, succession to the property of persons belonging to the same family as the alopting father, as fully appears from the Mannartha looksávallee, compiled by Kulüki Bhatta, and other authorities. On the death of Gunga Mya, therefore, the estate left by her father, 4, which she had succeeded on the death of her mother, and her right.to which was limited to a life-interest, should devolve on Kishenkishore, the brother's son of her husband, because when an estate devolves on a childless widow, who is held to be half the body of her husband, it reverts at her death to the heirs of her husband. So an estate which had devolved on a laughter, who has a weaker claim, should...fortiori, revert to the hoirs of her father. Authority—The text of Jāonyavalkya, cited in the Diyahāya and other law tracts: “The wife and the daughters, also both parents, brothers likewise and their soils, gentiles, cognates”, &c. ( Dáyabhága, p. 16).) 感 -- Sudder Dewiyiny Aulawlut, September 1st, 1821. Gunya Mya versus Kishonkiahore Chowtoore and othek. Mäen, H. L. vol. II. Case XIII. pp. 187—189. # The Vyavastiá or law opinion contained at pages 87-89 of the above work of Macnaghten's (see aatc, p. 1054) is directly oppoaod to the Wyatasthâ quoted above ; and though both of them are approved of by him as correct and valid, yet only one of those two Wyavasthäu can be so held. It is therefore necessary to ascertain which of them is to be preferred as being the just one. Although in the former of the two Wyavastkás in question, the adopted son of a sister is declared entitled to a seventh, as coheir with three sons of another sister, yet it appears, from the manner of writing the Wyavusthå, that it was given agreeably to the object of the ques. tion, which was: “to what proportion of the estate will each individual survivor betntitled” Reinurk.
