VYAVASTHA2DARPANA 161 this, Gangā Māyā's husband died leaving her a barren childless widow, but permitting her to adopt. Held that Gangā Māyā is the lawful heir on the death of her mother, but she (Gangā Māyā) has only a life interest; that on her death, the estate should revert to the son of her father's brother, to the exclusion of her (Gangā Māyā's) adopted son.—Gangā Māyā versus Krishna Kishore Choudhuri, 17th December 1821, S. D. A. Rep. Vol. III. pp. 128—132. The vyavasthā upon which the above decision is founded was to the following effect: On the death of Shib Náth, his property belonged of right to his widow Bhāgirati, and not to his brother Gobindprasād; for the estate of him who dies leaving no other heir, down to a great grandson, devolves, by the law of inheritance, on his widow. On the death of Bhāgirati, the estate she had inherited from her husband, should devolve on her daughter, who was unmarried at the time of her husband's death, and not on the brother of Shib Náth, for, by the law of inheritance, of the three descriptions of daughters, that is, the unmarried daughter, the married daughter, whose husband is living, and of whom there is a 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 default of other preferable heirs. But the son adopted by Gangā Māyā, by the consent of her husband, has no title to the estate to which she had succeeded, because, according to Dáyabhāga, an adopted son has 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 collaterally, the meaning is succession to the property of persons belonging to the same family as the adopting father, as fully appears from the Manwartha Muktivali compiled by Culluca Bhatta and other authorities. On the death of Gangā Māyā, therefore, the estate left by her father, to which she had succeeded on the death of her mother, and her right to which was limited to a life-interest, should devolve on Kishen Kishore, 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 daughter, who has a weaker claim, should, si fortiori, revert to the heirs of her father. See also the following cases:— Ráy Shám Ballabh versus Prán Kಚ್ಚhna Ghose—4th July 1825, S. D. A. Rep. vol. III. p. 33. and W. D. p. 9. Gadá Dhar Sarmá, and Káli Dás Sarmá versus Ajodhyá Rám Choudhuri–30th October 1794, S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I. p. 6. Two maiden daughters of Jagat Ballabh succeeded in to equal shares to his estate. Of these, one dying a childless widow, the other (as heir to the father of the deceased) took the vacant succession in preference to her father's brother's son. Rāy Shám Ballabh versus Prán Krishna Ghose—29th March 1830, S. D. A. Rep. Vol. W. page 21. - A Hindu widow executed a testamentary deed of gift of the landed property which she inherited from her husband, in favour of her four daughters, granting them equal shares of the property to be entered on by them after her death. The daughter of one of the two daughters, who died during the lifetime of the widow, sued the two surviving daughters for a fourth share of the property in right of he deceased mother. on consideration of all the documents, the Sudder Court (present J. Fendall, and S. T. Goad) were of opinion that the deed of gift, under which the plaintiff claimed a share of the property, was vid, and that, as the title of her mother Apárba to the said property had never been completed, from her having died before her mother Lakkhi Priyā (the said widow), the plaintiff who claimed the property through her mother had consequently no right thereto, and accordingly dismissed the claim.–Musst. Abhoyá and. another versus Ishwar Chandra Gânguli—2nd April 1810, S. D. A. Rep. Vol. II, p. 290. Ο 2 Cases bearing on the vynvnstha' Nos. 06, 83 & 5%. Cases bearing on the vyavastha” Nos. ?, 45 & 46°
