VYAVASTII A1 DAT&IPANA 230 of a vyavasthaf of Shoblıá IRáy Sarnıá, IBrindában ("handia Sarıııá, and Chatur 13htij Sarumá. p:undit s „t : lt Sudder ("ourt. This leclared that sons, born and unborn, of a whole sister (111arricol within the lor, 1· ·r time) would take lucrpredeceased sittlier's estate, whicla llad vest col in her mius or brother, who hall l;. . . before his marriage. II er som excludel luis paternal first consins and son of a half sister.” ('ase No. 2 ) ; S. I.). A. Itelo. p. 55, Vol. V. 24th August 18:30. IX írt í Náráyan Dat tii, wlio survived his brothers IX á shílbraslıád Datta and I’ratál, Ná rá van I)atta, LLLLL LLL 0000S 00S LS LLLLLLS LL LLLLS L LLLLLLLL LLLLS SLLLL LSLLLLLLLL 0LLLLLLS LLLLL LL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLS LLL LLLLLLLLS The wise died in 1202; and the minor son also died a 111er: clill, and ulunarried. The sul stance of the plaint was this : –“ My uncles are dead. Their sous, the defendituts, assumed charge of the joint estate, is: which my father held one-third shire. I married in 1206, when 10 years of age, and continued to receiv. an allowance of grain and money, from my cousins, out of the profits of the joint cstate. This (after i had become adulf, and Isroduced a son, Mollan Lal.) they stopped. I si i. f ,r one-thir l . •f' 1n y fat iu r^“state.’’ The desentlants, liebhews of plaintifi's fit her, pleaded that, by the iliuolu law, they were heirs to their paternal cousin, plaintitl’s brother ; and had taken, as such, the share which devolved on him, low his father's death. Such share, by an adjustment in 1199, was settled to two ouc quarter. The plaintity minor son. "I'lie Zillah judge, on 2nd March LS25, in favour of respondent, (as guardian of his minor son.) passed judginent : which was confirmed in the court of appeal, on 31st May, 1826, loy Mr. C. court. I’rom the above judgmuent hitvino died. her husband the respondent pursued the action, in behalf of their Snaitli. judge of that, a special appeal was preferred to the Sudder Dewany Ada w lut. and Mr. Ross recorded his opinion that a special appeal, on the part of all the ap ellant-, -hot!...I lmı" atılımitte ul. Mr. I lorin, the fourth judge, by whom the nuatter was next heard, directed, on the 13th Septemulwor. that the ryttras/hat of the pandit of the court of appeal should he referrel to the patidits of the Court for report. Mr. 1)orin died in the interim, and on the 17th January, 1 S2S, Al r. Turnbull recorded the verbal report of the pandits (Voidya Nātlı Misra and Rá in Tanu Vidyālāgī-h). It pronouncool the opiuion of the paudit of the court of alppeal to be erroneous. In consideration of this. and t lic 11 ايامج { ;" "1 adduced loy Mr. Toss, the special appeal was indu litted. 1}oth the parties joined issue ou, - the question of and the relevance of the rule of limitation. ( ) in the part of re-lo, ondent, was exhil it cil the ryotras/hat of the panslits of the Sudder I), waluny Adawlut, delivered in 1s 12." on the occasion of the 111otion of IRâm loulál Nāg, for admission of a special appeal. l lindtt law, involved in the case, The case came on for trial before Mr. M. 11. Turnbull, on the 15th July 1s:80. l l irá Nanda Mi-ra: the acting panulit of the Court, whom he verbally consulted, confirmed the accuracy of the roy... cost of just noticed, and the opinion of the pandit of the court of appeal. Mr. Turnbull dismissed the al"peal with costs, and a fliruled the judgment of the lower court. The above judgment was confirmed in review, after deliberate consideration. un, let these “iroualist ol' " On the 18th November 1s50, the appellants, IRâulkishore Datta, the widow of Kalāt-hanol, and the to sruardiau of Iłhoiral Chandra. applied for a review. Thev insisted that the ol'inion of the "slicial "+ ւ] y: , و سچ pandit, Ilirá Nanda Misra, was erroueous. On the 15th January, 1831, Mr. Turials:all i el 11:i'el
