VYAVASTHA?.DARPANA 23 Parāsara in his sanghitā (compillation,) the precepts of which are intended for the Kali age only, authorizes the adoption of the Kritrima son (p. 19) as well as of the dattaka, and out of the twelve descriptions of sons, he declares the Ourasa, duttaka, and Kritrina alone entitled to inherit. The practice of adopting the Kritrima son however does not prevail in Bengal, though it does in Mithilá. 8 If there be many sons, they inherit equally.” Vyavasthá After the death (a) of the father and mother, the brothers being assembled, may equally (iD.Cuthority divide the paternal estate, for they are not owners while they (the parents) live”. Manu Ch. IX, V. 104. (6) “After death”—i.e. after the extinction of right. Srikrishna's comment or Dáyabhāga. 9 (i) Here the term “equally" indicates that their title is equal ; that is, a deduction of a Vy avasthá twentieth part, &c., is allowed by other brothers, through affection and to preserve due respect, because elder brothers are venerable ; such deduction concerns, however the elder brothers who are endued with virtuet. But as persons of the present day entertain not great veneration (for their elder brothers), and as elder brothers deserving of deducted allotments are (now) rare, equal distribution is alone seen in the world!. Among the shūdras no deduction is allowed to the eldest or an elder brother.' - I. Rám Chấnd Ráy with his three brothers–Bhoib Chandra, Tilak Chandra, and Har Chandra —succeeded jointly at the demise of their father to the Zemindaree left by him. Subsequently Rám Chand died childless, leaving his widow Rasa Mani, who instituted the present suit for her husband's share, which was alleged to he one-sixteenth by right of primo-geniture and a fourth of the remainder. Held that the estate should be divided equally, and that the plaintiff receive four sixteenths;–the first born or an elder brother having no claim to a greater portion on the ground of priority ofbirth. Bhoirab Chândra Rāy versus Rasa Mani. 18th September 1799-S. D. A. R. Wol. I. p 27. - 11. In the case of Ishwar Chandra Kárfarmā and others versus Gobinda Chandra Kárfarmá and others it has been determined by the Supreme Court, that the seven sons, who survived their father Golock Chandra, were entitled to his real and personal estate, of which he was siezed and possessed at the time of his death; and that the said seven sons were so entitled in equal parts or shsres. January 1823. Cons. H. L. p. 74, 75.
- Vide-Coleb. Dig. B. V.Text. 4 (Vol. II. p. 521); Dá. bhá. Ch. III. Sect. 2, para, 25; W. Dá. Cr. Sang. p. 1; Maen. H. L. Ch. II, p. 17; Elb. In. Sect. I56, p. 69. *
Although the sons be by different mothers, and the number by each be unequal, still they shall equally inherit the paternal estate: the distribution being made per capita and not per stirpes. e. g. if there be two sons by one mother and six by another, still each son will inherit a one-eighth share. Vide Cons. H. I. p. 5, Macn. II. L. Vol. II. Ch. 2. p. 17. ' - Sir William Macnaughten treats of the son's succession in these terms: “According to the Hindu law of inheritance, as it at present exists, all legitimate sons, living in a state of union with their father at the time of his death, succeed equally to his property, real and personal, ancestral and acquired” (vol. I. p. 17). This however is not quite correct: because ; firstly, the dattaka is also held to be a legitimate son, but he "oes not auoceed equally with the Ourasa son of his adoptive father; secondly, the sons succeed, as heirs, to the patrimony not only at the time of their father's natural death, but also at the time of his civil death and voluntaray abandonment, (see p. 11); thirdly, the circumstance of a son living separate from his father does not exolude him from the heritage where he has not already recieved his portion or somewhat in lieu or Ratisfaction thereof. Thus much is apparent from a precedent quoted by the learnd compiler himself at p. 5., Vol. II. f Coleb. Dig. Vol. II, p. 521. ; Coleb. Dá bhá, Ch, III. Sect. 2, para. 27. §IDáyatativa. p. 17,56. Cases bearing on the vyawflsthás No. 8,
