VYAVASTHA-TDARIPANA 219 The persou in the fourth degree of descent is indeed a giver of suneral oblations to the proprietor's greal grandfather, but his sisters' sons present oblations to liis three aucestors, including his father, (who, is principally considered.) Consequently his great grandfather's descendant cannot inherit, where there are his fathgos daughters' sons stirviving. * "The o of-Al ANU cited in the Dáyabhāya: “To three must libations of water be made; to thro must oblations of food be presented, the fourth in descent is the giver of those offerings ; but the fifth has no concern with them.” - - 13ut on sailure of heirs of the father down to the great grandson, it must be understood that th - & * * 歌 * * یی ബ گیه succession devolves on the father's daughter's son. This is the opinion of J1 MUTAVA in A.N.A. g * - o 漫 - - گری shionisms a says: —“The father's daughter's son inherits, though there be the grandfather's 参 uterine brother or the like living.” Cousequently, on the death of the proprietor, his father's two daughters' sons should have succeeded to the property which their uncle left; and on the leath of one of the sisters' sons, his widow is entitled to her husband's share of the estate. 'I', this essect is the text of VR111AT MANU, cited in the Diyabhisit. (See W. D. p. 35.) Zillah Mylneusingh, May 18th 1823. Cli. I. See. 6, Case 9, (pp. 89–91.) Q. A person died, leaving a widow and a sister's son, who died before the widow, leaving a sou ls thesior's son's son entitled, on the death of the widow, to inherit the property left by her ? R. The sister's son's son, whose father died previously to the widow's decease, has no title to the succession. Zillah Sylhet, May sth, 1812. ('lı. 1. See. G, Case 10, (p. 91.) 1. The sons of the paternal uncle and of the sister of a deceased Hindu, whose family, originally from: Mithilä, had resided for in Bengal, claimed his pstate. The Zillah court adjudged, that the estate fell by law to the plaintist as deceased's sister's son in preference to his paternal uncle ; that lakkhi Priyā, step-mother of the deceased, was entitled to maintenance. The provincial court of Dacca affirmed this decree in appeal. The Sudder Dewanny Atlawlut, under the opinion of their landits to the effect that “if the family, being from Mithilá, but dwelling in Bengal, performed religious rites with the people of Beugal, and held a zຕານີ້ lary in that province, then Golokchandra, the deceasel's sister's son, is entitled to isoonformally to the Bengal law. But if the family merely dwelt in lieugal, and performed religious ceremonies with the Mithilà-people, and observed the laws and usages of that province, then Rájchaudra, the paternal uncle, will inherit according to the Mithilä-law,” and on consideration that the contested lands were situated in Bengal; that the family had been long resident in 13engal; that there had been no uniform observance of the ordinances of the Mithilä-shristra; cousirmed the lower court's decrees. Ráj ("handra Náráyan choudhuri versus Golok Clıandra Guha–22ıld January 1801–S. D. A. Rep. Wol. I. (p. 43.) II. Rám Mani sued as the heir of her father and brothers to inherit the estate jest by them. Her claim was dismissed, because she had not a sou alive at the time of the death of her mother who survived the brothers; (and because her last surviving brother had, previous to his death, executed a deed of gift in favour of the niale heir). Rám Mani Choudhurání versus Hemlatá Choudhurání, 6th January 1835. S. D. A. ltep. Vol. VI. (p. 3.) The widow of a sister's son (on whom the estate had devolved) takes the estate to the exclusion of the sister herself. Itám Gosáin versus Rām IRāui Debi. S. D. A. R. Wol. IV. (p. 47.) A sister’s grands,a is Egt an Ilear. Cases هم بر bearin, on the v yavastha No. 87.
