পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৩৪৫

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

VYAVASTHAT-DARPANA - 221 وية مع The existence or conception of the sons of the daughters of the father and the rest at the time of the owner's death constitutes their title ; this is laid down by Ji'Mustavahana, Shi’ KirishNA,” and the other authors respected in Bengal. Hence— 喙 89. Those sons only of the daughters of the father and the rest who survive the owner, or remain in utero at the time of his death, are entitled to inherit his property.” Not those who are subsequently conceived, their heritable right not being acknowledged by J1 MUTAvATIANA" and the other compilers of the Bengal law. 1. Kirti Chandra, who inherited his father's property, dying an unmarried minor, was succeeded by his mother Joydurgi, who subsequently died, leaving Lakkhi Priyá her husband's wife, Pùruiná her stepdaughter, and Bhoirah Chandra the son of the oaternal uncle of Kirti Chandra. Lakkhí Priyā instituted the present suit to establish her right in the property of Kirti Chandra. Pendente lite, Pùrnimä bore a son, named Braja Nāth Chattopádhyāy, and she, on the part of herself, and her minor son Braja Nāth who died after a time, intervened for the assertion of their right to the property in dispute. Bhoiral Shaudra, among other things, pleaded in his answer that the collector of Rungpore, with the sanction of the Zillah Judge, eaused his name to be recorded in place of that of Joydurgá, who succeeded her son, having certained, by reference to the pandit of the court, that he (Bhoirab) was the legal rightful reversionary (1). The case having come on before Mr.P. E. Patton, a judge of the provincial court of Moorshcdabad, on the part of the plaintiff was exhibited copy of cyavasthé of Rājehandra Tarkālankár, pandit of the Dacca provincial court, and the rubakiri of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, dated 27th March 1818, containing the exposition of the law by its pandits in regard to the case of Rájeshwari Debi rersus Pránkrishna Bishwas. Mr. Patton remarked, that the case was not relevant, and that the opinion of 鄧e Zillah court pandit confirmed that of the pandit of the provincial court. Consequently, he dismissed the suit with costs, and overruled the intervention of Pūrnāmā, the pretensions advanced by her appearing untenable. This judgment was preceded by reference to Krishna Náth Náyapanchánan, pandit of the court, to ascortain the law. The answer of the pandit was to this effect, “Neither his (Kigi Chandra's) stepmother (plaintist), nor half sister (Pärnimä) has any right to the estate which devolved, on the death of Kirti Chandra, on his mother Joydurgå. Púrnimä has borne a son since the death of Joydurgå. There is, indeed, in the Diyabhaga a text declaratory of the heritable right of those born subsequently, Dut the scholiasts explain this as regarding the estate of the paternal grandfather. As there is no authority for the succession of a father's daughter's son, born under, the circumstances in question, Bhoirab the son of Krishna Chandra's half brother is entitled (2).”

  • Sec V. D. pp. 5, 7. Elb. Im. p. 79.

(1) Bábu Rám. pandit of the civil court of Rungpore, in his answer declared the right of Bhoirah Chandra, as son of Kirti Chandra's uncle. The pandit added, that no text of law propounded the right of a sister, and the stepmother was not meant by texts which provided for the succession of the mother. (2) The pandit refers to a text of MANU cited in the Dāyabhaga. J1%irtava has a says: If the hereditary estate were divided when the mother was yet fecund, there would be a deprivation of subsistence (writi-lopa). These are the words of MANU's text, quoted by him, which Mr. Colebrooke renders * dissipštion of their hereditary maintenance.” (See Coleb. Dá. bhá. Ch. I. para. 45). ... The seholiast Shi< KRIslin A remarks that “they would be deprived of their share in their paternal grandfather's estate.” D 3 Vyawaetha^ Cases bearing on the vyavasthas No. 89.