- VYAVASTIIA. DA IRPANA 205 widow, neither the second brother's son's widow, nor his daughter, nor his daughter's sons, can have any title to the property of the first brother's widow ; as a son's widow has no right of succession to her ow: father-in-law's property, a fortiori she can have no right of succession to her father-in law's broth. F. property. The brother's daughter is not enunterated in the series of heirs of one who leaves no II,ale issue Although it is naintained in some copies of the Diyakramasangraha, that a brother's daughter's son has a right of succession, yet this doctrine is wholly omitted in many copics of that tract, and there is no rule is, the Dúyabháya, the commentary by 8нґ кніяпxл Тл вкл 1дккд кл, Dúyatatwa, or other authority, to the effect that the brother's daughter's son lias the right of succession. In this case, the kinsmucu in the sixth degree sprung from the paternal stock first succeed, and in default of them, those who are of the sevent}, ...; more reinote degree succeed, according to their proximity in the order of relationship. The fact of the second brother's son's widow living with her husband's uncle's widow, in respect of joint food and other matters, is not the ineans of conferring upon her any right of succession, as the Diyal.htiya and oth, r authorities eurrent in Bengal contain no special rule to that estect, dependant eu the division or non-division of the property. This opinion is conformalle to the Dāyabhaya, Diyakramasamyraha, Liigatastra. and other authoritics current in Bengal.” “Where there are many relatives (gnátayah.) or remote kindred (sakulyah), or cognate kindred (väntlhavah), he who is nearest of kin shall take the wealth of him who li: s without male issue VR111 Asp viri cited in the Diyatatica and Dūyakramasamyrtha. Zillah Myinensing, March 5th 1819. Ch. I. Seet, 5, ('ase 11, pp. 76 7S. (2. 'There wer> foiıir brothers, namely, IDevakín:iiidlan, T0}1aramídhar, I&á iiik:int;i. aııd K#.1ipr:ısá «! Iovakimandan died in the month of Bysack 1222 18. S., leaving two sons. In the year 1197 B S I harmidhar died childless, and his widow Suradhaní also died in the month of Magh 121S B S. Rámkānta died in the year 1216 B. S., and his widow Jayniani an:l two sons are still living : an! Kāliprasād died childless in the year 1201 B. S., leaving a widow, who is still living. The liother. ● were possessed of some landel property in cqual portions, and according to the award given by arbitratorthe widows of Dharanidhar and Kāliprasād were in the enjoyment of the Iroduce of their respectiv,' hushand's shares of the estate while they were living, and on their death their shares were divided h, two in 1}ovakimandan, Ránikanta. and their hoirs. In this case, on the death of Suradhani the widow of I}harani shar, was the widow of Kālijrasād entitled to any portion of the produce which Suradhan, received 2 - IR. Smpposing the widows of I)haranidhar and Káliprasād to have njoyed the produce of their . ့ ့ ့ ... d on و respective husbands' shares of the estate during their life-time, on the death of one of theim, being the • * * * * * * * *widow (Suradhami) of Dharanidhar, the widow of Kãliprasād has no right to get any portion of the produce which belonged to Suradhami, because the law no where recognizes the brother's willow as uns of the heirs of a person who dies leaving no mile issue.t Musst. Jaynlani Deli rersus Rinjay Choudhuri. Sudder Dewanny Alawlut, 11th August 8:4. (‘h. l. Seet. 5, Case 12, pp. 78, 79. Q. A Brijkman, having caused partition of the landed estate and effects, which he had held joi..tly with his uterine brother, lived apart, and died leaving a uninor son, an unmarried daughter, a widow, and the sons of his brother abovementioned. His son subsequently died ; then his widow. There is a !. 1. possibility that his daughter will have male issue, and she claims her father's estate. Is this taughter, - - - - or are his brother's sons, entitled to the succession ? ! his is not accurate. See the remark on the succession of the brother a daguhler's son and the isot, t I he to operty which was possessed by Suradhani’, the widow of Dharani dhar. wo.! devolve on the heir of - - - ایر * -- - :ம். . * LLLLLL Lttttttt LLLLLS LL LLLLL LLLL LLLSLL LLL LLLLLLLL Ltta Aa LLLLS SLLLL LLLLLLAAAAS LLLL A LL AAAA AAAAH HHHH LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLL aulieriod died Plior to the death of Dharmi dhar's widow. Z 2
