· VYAVASTHAT IDARPANA 229 萨 death there were living A^nanda Moyi, and Sānanda Moyí, her husband’s married sisters; five sons he the former; two of the latter; and Paramānanda Moyi, her husband’s unmarried sister. The husband of Ananda Moyi subsequently died. Sānanda Moyi had another son named Durgā Dás Dhar. The pandits of the Zillah courts of Beerbhoom, Moorshedabad, and Nuddea, being referred to by the Zillah Judge, declared that, under the circumstances stated, the seven nephews of Mohánanda, alive at the time of his death, weré, on the death of his widow, entitled to the estate of their maternal uncle, and that the son of Sánanda Moyi subsequently born was not entitled to share in it. The judge, with reference to these vyavasthas,and precedents, passed judgment dismissing, the claim of Sānanda Moyi's sons subsequently born. The Sudder Court, in appeal, asked their pandit —1st. Is the son born to Sánanda Moyi, after. the death of Mohánanda and his widow Drapa Moys, entitled to share equally with his brothers and cousins in the estate left by Mohánanda and his widow P-and should other sons be born to Sánanda Moyá, will they also be entitled to share P 2nd. Are the laws on these points as current in Urissä and Bengal the same, or is there any difference between them 2 3rd. Should a decree have been passed, after the death of Mohánanda and his widow, recognizing the right of the five sons of A1 anda Moyi and the two sons of Sānanda Moyi, and should they, in execution of such decree, have been put in possession of their shares, will the decree and subsequent execution in any way affect the claim of the sons of sánanda Moyí subsequently born ? - The pandit replied to the first question that, under the circumstances stated, the son born to A manda Moyi, after the death of Mohánanda and his widow, would be entitled to share equally with his brothers and cousins, according to the first authority which he would cite, but that he would not be entitled under other authorities which follow : s,* - Authoritiesz- - I. MANU –They who are born, and they who are yet unbegotten, and they who are actually in the womb, all require the means of support ; and the dissipation of their hereditary maintenance is censured. See Coleb. Dá. bhá. Ch. 1. para. 45. - 2. Gloss of Sai KRIsn's A TankA1ANkan on the Dáyabhāya.-The term “dissipation of their hereditary maintenance, or deprivation of subsistence,” in the above text means that “the deprivation of the grandsons of their share in their paternal grandfather's estate is censured.” 3. Picúdabhangárnavg.—“In the text of MANU above cited, the word “writti” or patrimonial support is used. This refers to ancestral property lineally inherited in the male line.” To the second question the Pandit replied, that the works of Shambhūkara Böpei and Vidyākara, Bšjpeí were in great repute in Orissã, that he had frequently enquired for those works, but had never succeeded in procuring them. He was therefore unable to speak with certainty on this point. . He added that the Motokshard was also current in Orissa ; and thus there was a difference in the law as current in Orissa and Bengal, in which latter the Mitakshará was not current. - " в Reply to the third question. Under the circumstances stated in the third question, the claim of the son, born subsequently to the decree and execution thereof, would be affected; because, the right of the other seven shareholders having been settled by the ruling power in conformity with the law, the daughter's son of the original proprietor, the father of Mohánanda, born after the death of Mohánanda and his widow, has no claim to share in the estate.” . - . . . " . Authorities— 1. MANU.—Once is the partition of an inheritance made; once is a damsel given in marriage; and once does å man say, * 1 give :' these three are, by good men, done onêo for all, and irrevocably.** Ch. IX. V. 47. 2. NA’nada, cited in the Virádabhangúrnava and other works:– “The subjects are under the authority of their ruler, and the ruler is at liberty to give orders to his subjects.”
- These authorities are inapplicable in the present instance. The first of them applies only where the partition was made justly &lharmatah : see Kulluka, Bhatta's conullent on the text cited). But where the property is us istributed, it must again be divided, as in the case of a brother born efter partition. See Colcb. I)ig. vol. III. pp. 48, 49,
IF. 3
