VYAVASTHA2DARPANA 145 The ease was next brought before the Chief Judge (W. Leycester) and the Officiating Judge (J. H. Harington). They deemed it necessary to consult the Pandits on the law of inheritance applicable to the case, and the following was the substance of their opinion delivered in reply to the questions of the Court: “If Musst. Süradhani, widow of Dharanidhar, died during the life-time of his brother Devakinandan, and of the widow and sons of Rámkānoa Choudhuri, another of his brothers, Devakinandan is exclusively entitled to the share of Dharanidhar: inasmuch as a brother, according to the Hindu law, succeeds before his nephews. If, in consequence of the award made by arbitration, Rámkānta Choudhuri obtained prossession of his own and of Dharanidhar's share, and gave maintenance to . Musst. Sáradhaní out of the profits of it, still he cannot legally succeed to the share during the life-time of Sūradhani, inasmuch as a widow is entitled to the property of her deceased husband; and if Musst. Sáradhani died subsequently to the death of Rámkánta, Devakinandan is entitled to succeed to her husband's property, being his proper heir, to the exclusion of his nephews (Rámkānta's sons). This is the Hindu law as “laid down by the authorities prevalent in Bengal. Authorities.—The text of JA GNYAvALKYA, and Vishnu, cited in Däyabhága.” (Vide V. I), p. 29). The Pandits had previously stated, im reply to a question propounded to them by Mr. Shakespear, that on the death of a widow, on whom property had devolved at the death of her husband, the widow of another brothér was not under any circumstances recognised as an heir by the Hindu law. The Court seeing no reason to alter the decree of the Provincial Court, it was finally affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.-Musst. Joymani Debí, appellant, versus Rāmjoy Choudhuri, respondent— 6th January 1824. S. D. A. R. vol. III. p. 280. ON THE DAUGHTER’s RIGHT or succession. As those persons, who are exhibited in the text (which declares the succession of) “the wife, daughters &c.” to be the next heirs on failure of the prior claimants, would have succeeded if the widow's right had never taken effect, so shall they succeed to the residue of the estate remaining after her use of it, upon the demise of the widow in whom the succession had wested. At such time (when the widow diest, or when her right ceasest) the succession of daughters and the rest is proper, since they confer greater benefits on the deceased (by oblations presented by thems) than other claimants. (Coleb. Dá. bhá. pp. 181, 182). Therefore,– - 46. In default of the wife, the daughter succeeds". I. The son of a man is even as himself, and the daughter is equal to the son: how then can any other inherit his property, notwithstanding the survival of her, who is as it were himself. /o MANU and NA RADa.** 像 • JΑ'ο»νανκτ κτλ.-see. ν. D, p. 29. t 8a' Κntou», Tarxaʼlanxaʼna. + Citunaʼmanz. $ Maueenwara. * Coleb. Daó bha. ch. XI. Sect. s, para 1, p. 184-W. Das Kra. Sang. Sect. p. 7.-Coleb. Dig- Vol. IIIpp. 490, 491–Da. T. p. 53.–Macn. H. L. Vol. I. p. 21.–Eib. In. p. 76. - •* Manu 9. 130, Not found in Na%ADA's institutes. Coleb. Da. bha". Ch. XI. Sect, o Para 1. P. *o* K 2 Vyawastha ബ് Authority.
