VYAVASTHA1 IDA RIPANA 223 From this decision, Lakkhi Priyā and her daughter Pūrnimä appealed to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut. Mr. Walpole, a judge of the Sudder Court, adverted to the appeal of Karunā Moyi versus Joychandra Ghose (3), and the application of special appeal of Kamalākānta Rāy and others (4), and in particular to tho cyavasthé of the pandits of the Court in those matter?' Mr. Walpole also adverted to two ruba kiris of the Sudder Court, dated 20th and 28th of November 1827, and vyavasthā of the pandits regarding the application of Kálíprashád Ráy (5). Mr. Walpole, deeming a further exposition of the Hindu law current in Bengal necessary, made a reference to the pandit of the Court, and obtained this exposition: “Under the circumstances stated, Brajanáth, the son of the daughter of Krishna Chandra, father of Kirti Chandra, is competent to perform exeguial rites and ceremonies of his maternal grandfather:-not Bhoirab, son of his half brother. So also will such son of the daughter of Krishna Chandra be entitled to succeed to his costate, which passed from him to his son Kirti Chandra, and from him to his mother Jay Durgā. His subsequently born brothers will be entitled to share equally with such son of Krishna Chandra’s daughter. If the paternal uncle’s son and father's daughter's son coueur, the former has no right. But if on the death of Jay durgā no son of Kirti Chandra’s father's daughter may have been born, or conceived, then his father's daughter, as source of the future production of a maternal grandson of his father, will succeed.” This opinion was considered on the 20th February 1833. The wakils of respondent urged, I. That he had succeeded to the disputed estate on the death of his cousin ; II. Brajanāth had died ; III. Púrnimä was excluded from inheritance by leprosy both in respoct to the estate of her half brother and that of her son; IV. She was a twice married woman : for after marriage fixed with one inan she had married another. Neither lier son, the issue of such marriage, nor herself had any heritalle right, nor was he competent to perform excquial rites. Mr. Walpole, deemed further reference to the Pandit necessary ; and obtained this solution : “J. Puruimá, the mother, succeeds to the estate of her son Brajanáth, if he be not survived loy male issue of a father. II. I.eprosy bars inheritancé unless the affected person perform atonement. It is no bar in that case. I I I. If Púrnimá had been aflianced to one, and then married to another, to whom she has loorne a son ; still (as defined in 1ny former opinion) will her right in regard to the estate left by Kirti Chandra arise (6).” On the part of the respondent, was exhibited solution by Rámjay, a pandit of the Supreme Court, of questions propounded to him. It was to this effect : “The stepmother of Kirti Chandra, his (3) See Case No. 15, S. D. A. Rep. Vol. V. pp. 42–46. (4) See note to iugmm, p. 44. (5) Párbaticharan (who was the son of the brother of Káliprashād Rāy), dying a minor, was succeeded by his grandmother Itásmani Debi. On her death, his sister Shānā Sūndari, and his uncles Kálíprashád Ráy and Dúrgásundra Ráy, coneurred. “Should Shám á Sundarí , produce a son, would such son be entitled to the estate vacated by the death of the grandmother; and if so, until the birth of the sister’s son to whose care should the charge of the estate be committed,—that of the sister, or that of the uncles P and if the latter, is caution exigible P” On the case thus put, the pandits of the Court, Râmtanu Sarms, and Voidyanāth Misra, delivered an exposition which was in substance this r “As next heir, his paternal grandmother succeeded to the estate, which Párbaticharan inherited from his father. The same principle applies on the death of Rásmani. Anyaoaternal grandsons of the father of Rărbati, borne by Shāmā Sundari his sister, will have no rights”for there is no law declaratory of the right of the father's daughter's son (a pseferable heir to the grandfather, who is prior to the paternal grandmother.) to succeed on her death to the estate which she as heir had obtained.” The authorities cited,—front shriknishna’s comment on the Dáyabhūgo, from the Digest, and from the Dáyakramasangrahat-- showed that, in the order of succession, the father's daughter's son precedes the grandmother, and is next to the brother's grandson. (6) The authorities cited were:—I. Text of Jasa NvAvALKYA as to the series of heirs.--II, Text of DEvala, citcd in the Diyabhaiga, (Chapter 5, para. 11.) as to the exclusion from inheritance of the leper , and others. III. Extraet from the Digest, comment on the tèxt DrvAi.a. (See Vol. II I. p. 805), In regard to the leper or person astlicted with elephantiasis, the author adds as it condition, defect of atonement for sin. Leprosy is considered as a punishment for sin in a former birth. * = 4 Remark --Both of the above vyavasthās of the Sudder pandit are wrong, and the authorities quoted are inappleable, as will be perceived on perusal of the cyarasthais delivered by the Supreme Court pandits, the note No. 7 in the present case, and the subsequent remarks, Q. V.
