*. g sovyāvastha rappaNA. 193
- , *, *.
$ I. In the case of Rudra Ch.pdra Childhur versus Shambhu Chandra Choudhuri, Sudden Dew unny Cases Bಲ್ಲಂತ್ತ್ಯ vo. III. page 106, a question arose as to the ಶಿಸ್ತಿ rigήίερί" brother and a brother's son to bearing on the vyavasilä’ succeed, on the death of a widow, to property which flookoon her so the death of her husband, No. 75. they being the next heirs. The Pandits at first declared, that a brother's son (his father being dead) was entitled to inherit together with thế brother. But this opinion was subsequently proved and admitt, d to be erroneous. In the succession to the estate of a grandfather, the of representation unquestionally exists; that is to say,' the son of a deceased son inherits together with his uncle: not so in the case of property left by a brother, the brother's son being enumerated in the order of heirs to a childless person's estate after the brother, and entitled to succeed only in default of the latter. In the case in question, the deceased left two brothers and a widow, and the widow subceeding, one of the brothers-died during the time she held possession. The son of the brother who so died claimed, on the death of the widow, to inherit together with his uncle, and the fallacy of the opinion which maintained the justice of his claim gonsisted in supposing, that on the death of the first brother the right of inheritance of his other two surviving brothers immediately accrued, and that the dormant right of the brother who died secondly vas transmitted to his son. Éut, in point of fact, while the widow survived, neither brother had even an inchoate right to inherit the property, and consequently the brother who died during her life-time could not have transmitted to his son a right which never appertained to himself Macn li L. Vol I pp 26, 27 * II. The same doctrine was maintained in the case of Musst. Joymani Debi rersus Rāmov Choudhuri—S. D A. Itepts. Vol. III. page 289, Vide V. D. pp. 140—144. o o ON THE SUCCEssion of THE BROTHER’s SoN and GRANdson. 76. On failure of the brother of the half blood, the succession devolves on vowso the brother's son.* Because he offers two oblation-cakes to the father,and grandfather of the (late) owner. Reason. I. The texts of Vishnu and Ja?gwyavaixy A. (Vide V. D. p 29.) Authority. II. If, among the several brothers of the whole blood, one have a son born, MANU pronounces them all fathers of a male child by means of that son + Maso, Ch. 9, V. 182. 77. The succession however devolves first on the son of a uterine (or whole) vyavath, brother, and not on the son of the half brother.” Because the mother (of the deceased owner) not participating in the oblations presented by l{e us n. the nephew of the half blood, to the deceased's father and grandfither, he confers less bencfits compared with the son of the whole brother, aid the oblator's mather and the rest exclusively participate in the oblations presented by him to his father and the rest, respectively, as declared by the following text : “A mother, tàoes with her husbaná oblations (offered to the manes) so also do the paternal grandmothet and great grandmother with their own husbands (respectively). 2 , * با مهره ای م؟ - 嚮 _ 登 & on * معیت - تعني بـera مجتمام ..— - - p. 21s. w. Daí, Kra, Sang, pp. 15, 16. coleb. dig vol III 1p • 18, 5 19. vicn ii i ಳ್ಗಿ!:* In p. 36. * * * ' " ' "of the nephew's succession must however be understood to be on failure of heirs down to the brother in conso به ткумнкум, text “Ihs wife and daughters, also both parente, brothers likewise, and their sons,” & \ { 4ϊ.) Και υ"ΚΑ Βn»trλ. : .است
- n
- , W , 2 .
& Aw
