vyAvAstha D4RFANA. 1104 and the law officer's answer was restricted to that alone, Had the question been, whether a sister's adopted son is entitled to inherit from a maternal uncle?' the answer had doubtless been a different one. The learned compiler, motover, having, in his hote therson declared the pundit', proportion of the shares to be accurate, has at the same time admitted that there is no express authority for the succession of the adopted son of a sister. But nevertheless he has added: “but his right is admitted by inference.’ It seems that, at the time of writing the note, he himself must have drawn the inference without consulting the paramount authoritics on the law; for, none of them has drawn such an inference as the above. In fact, it appears to be contrary to their doctrine on the point in question. For instance, the author of the Milikahari in his exposition of the text of Manu, already cited, having taken the word ‘handhu' to mean supinda, and saniisodakas, has held the dattaka son entitled to their property;” the author of the "Diyabhāya has at once denied his title to inherit from a 燃 ;” the author of the Jattaka-Chandriki having recognised such dathika alone as may be endued with good qualities entitled to inherit from a handhi, and a dataka endued with the required tualities not being found at the present (Kali) age, the effect of his opinion is that a dut/ou at the present age is not entitled to inherit from a bandhu.” Jagannātha may be said to have followed the alovo doctrine. Kullika Bhutta, in his commentary upon the above text of Afont, has determined that the datsaka son is entitled to inherit from a handhu of the same family as his adoptive father. Th; other authors have said nothing in particular regarding an adopted son's succession to the property of a hundhu; and even if they had, their doctrine could not be of any weight against the doctrine of the paralnount authorities aforesaid, it appears, however, that the learned goutleman himself has subsequently laid down his principle of the law, with regard to the point. in question, contrary to the former Pyaraathé and the inference; that is to sav, after having published the synoushi and inference in question in vol. II (of his work on Hindu Law) which contains the admitted law opinions, and was published in 1828, he, in vol. 1. which was published in 1829, and contains his doetrine and principles of Hindu law, having consulted and considered the text of Alaut and the doctrines of the shivahháya, Ihittaka-Chandrikā, and other authorities, has, in spite of the Vyavasthā and the inference in question, laid down the principle to the elect. that “an adopted son by the dation form succeeds collaterally as well as lineally : this may now he fairly said to be set at rest; and that a son so adopted has no legal claim to the property of a / indhu or cognate relation.” He has then given his reason why a % son has no legal claim to inherit from a cognate elation; and, as a precedent of the principle laid down by him, he has cited the case of Gunga Mya rerous Kishen Kishote and others,f which was decided according to the latter of the two conflicting synraxthis, and this (latter | synraathi is based upon the doctrine of Aus/uot Bhattu. Thus when, having already published a syarastki, he has afterwards published another directly opposed to the former, though relating to the same point, and has, in accordance with the latter, laid down his principle of the law, then it is quite clear that the learned compiler has rejected the former Wyarax!há and the inference in question, and approved of the latter symrushá particularly when the principle of the law laid down by him entirely corresponds with the latter synrasshá.-Indeed, it is not the fortner, but the latter Jyurasthé and his principle that are in accordance with the law in force. Shum (hunder and Rooder Chunder, Appellants, versus Maruyni Debeh and Rankishor Ray, Respondents. This was an action brought by Sham Chunder and Ronder Chunder in the Zillah Court of Mymunsing, to recover from Narayni Debeh and Ramkishor Roy, a anna share of Pergunnah Mymunsing, forming the estate of the late Kishenkishor Roy. The family of the parties was as follows:–Srikishen, Zeminar of Mymunsing, &e. left four kons, the - und 2nd by one wis.; the 3rd and 4th by another.—lst Kishenkishor Roy, the Zemindar of the annas in dispute died in 1171, without isłue, leaving two widows;·-lāt, Ruttunmala, who died in 11%) , after adopting Nundkishor; 2nd Narayni Debeh (defendant) adopted Ramkishor Roy (defendant) after Nund. kishore's death.-The 2nd son Gopaulkishor, had no issue, but adopted son Joogulkishor;
- 8ee ante, pp, 1088—1004. f See Macn. H. L, vol, I. pp. 78, 79. : §ee ante, pp, 150—161. pp Þp
104 { АК}} Behring on the V y avasthá No. 5:45,
