vyAvAsth A DARPANA 173 The Zillah judge dismissed the claim, considering that there was sufficient evidence to raise a presumption, that the plaintiff's mother and grandmother died before the husband of the latter; and on the ground that, after the death of Rám Prasād (maternal grandfather of both parties,) his second Padma Mukhi, grandmother of the defendants, obtained possession of the property, and made a gift of it to them, and that the plaintiff had never advanced any claim since the death of his maternal grandfather. From thia decision the plaintiff appealed to tho Dacca provincial court, and dying pendente lite, was succeeded in appeal by his sons. Two judges of this court, for reasons recorded in their proceedings, awarded to the appellant (plaintiff) possession of the share claimed. The Sudder Jewanny Ådawlut, having consulted with their Pandits, who declared the gift invalid, and the maternal grandsons (whether by different mothers or not) entitled per capita and not per stirpes, amended the decree of the provincial court, and ordered the property to be divided into three cqual shares, and one to be given to the plaintiff, and one to each of the two defendants, grandsons of the deceased proprietor—17th July 1821, Râm Dhan Son versus Krishna Kánta Sen, S. D. A. YR. Vol. III. page 100. Iomjoy Shil claimed from his (patornal) uncle and his widow as 偲 parsons last seised. The aunt shortly before survived the uncle, whose patrimonial estate it was ; but in the course of the examination it came out from the petitioner that his uncle and aunt had left an only daughter surviving them, who was married to a person of the name of Nabakishore, and who had a mule child by him, which mile child survived the mother from eight to fifteen days. The Pandit declared, “If there had been no issue of the uncle's daughter surviving its mother, the property, on the daughter's death, would have gone away from her husband Nabakishore, to the complainant, as next heir of the uncle; but as the daughter hall male issue, which survived her, the estate descended to such male issue on whose death Nabakishore, the father, took, as heir at law to his son. The petition was accordingly dismissed.—12th June 1816. East's.Notes, Case 53. Gangi Máyá versus Krishna Kishore Choudhuri—17th December 1821. S. D. A. Rep. vol. III. pp. 128–132. See W. D. pp. 159–161. ON THE FATHER's RIGHT of scocession. - இ. '60. On failure of the daughter's son (s), the succession devolves on the father.” Because he confers benefit (on the deceased son) by presentation of two oblation-cakes, (one to the grandfather, and the other to the great grandfather of that son), in which the deceased participates. - - © 1. The texts of visasu and Jaasravalrya. See v. D. р. 29. 嘯 II. After partition, if a son die leaving no son, (h), the father takes the (deceased son's) propertyf. Ka'tya'yana. - • Goleb. Daí, bha'. Ch. xi. Sect, s, para. 1, p. 194.--w.. Daí, Kra, sang. pp. 11, 12.-Coleb. Dig, Vol. 111. p. šo t. Das. T. p. 54. Elb. In. 77. f This text is inaccurately translatą i. Winch's Dávakrama Sangraha, p. 11, and Colebrooke's Digest, Vol. III, p. 50s. To 2 - Casc be tring on the vyavasthas Nos. 58 S. G0. Case bearing on the vyavasthä Nos, 5.3. Vyavasıhü. Reason. Authority.
