VYAVASTHA?-DAR.PANA 347 other ancestors. Relying on this construction, the authority above quoted cannot be adduced in support of the unborn male descendants of the sister, as, in consequence of her being married, and having engrafted herself on the family of her husband, her male descendants form a quite distinct and separate branch of the family. Besides, I have always held, and still hold, that thus passage prescribes a moral duty rather than a legal obligation;. as, were it held to have strictly legal force, it would militate against the admitted right of a Hindoo father in Bengal to dispose of his property according to his own choice by will, gift, or otherwise. Apart from this consideration, it is to be observed that the very terms of the text, providing for sons yet unbegotten, refer to a contingent and future and not to a present right. The dissipation censured in the passage is not intended to amount to a legal prohibition, as we find in Chap. II. paragraph 28, where it is said: “But the texts of VXAsA, exhibiting a prohibition, are intended to show a moral offence, since the family is distressed by sale, gift, or other transfer, which argues a disposition in the person to make an ill use of his power as owner. They are not meant to invalidate the sale or other transfer.” The passage, “They who are born,’ &c., quoted above, really means that a married man is bound to provide for those children who are born, those who are in conception, and those who are yet unbegotten; in other words, not only for his actual family but for those who may yet come into being; and any dissipation of property which may affect the maintenance of his offspring is justly censurable on moral grounds. This is a principle not peculiar to the Sanserit legislators, but common to all civilised nations. But to construe such a passage as creating a right for the unborn or unbegotten at the expence of those that are born and living, is any thing but consonant to the meaning of the text or the spirit of the law. Were it a question, whether the dissipation of property that may descend to a sister's son can be considered a moral wrong, I should reply in the negative. The commentator SRI KRIslin A, in limiting the construction of the passage, “Those who are born,' &c., before quoted, in favour of the right of the grandson and other lineal descendants to the estate of the grandfathcr or direct ancestor, evidently had in view the fact that they have or may have an inchoate right by birth during the life-time of the proprictor, and that their right becomes perfect by his death, natural or civil, or his voluntary abandonment of the property. It is the dissipation of the property likely to descend to such person, whether born or unborn, and consequently the dissipation of their hereditary maintenance, that is condemned. That doctrine surely cannot be applied either to the sister's son surviving at the decease of the owner, or the sons : of such sisters, who are in conception or yet unbegotten. The right therefore of the sister's son must come under the general law of inheritance, viz. the survival of one at the time of the demise of the owner. I might have given you my opinion at greater length, and with more illustrations, if my leisure permitted; but what I have written will, I believe, suffice for your purpose”. Fours sincerely, 30th June 1856. İPI?OSSO NAVO COOMAA? TAGORE. \. The author of Dayakramasangraha has declared that the brother's daughter's son succeeds after the Remarks. father's daughter's son and before the paternal grandfather ; that the paternal uncle's daughter's son inherits after the paternal grandfather's daughter's son and before the paternal great-grandfather; that the son of the daughter of the paternal grandfather's brother succeeds after the great-grandfather's daughter's son and before the maternal gandfather ; and that the sons of the daughters of the maternal standfather, great-grandfather, and great great-grandfather succeed in due order after the great-grandsons of their respective maternal grandfathers. The author of Vāvādabhangárnava, omitting the succession of the sons of the daughters of the proprietor's own brother, father's brother, and grandfather's brother, has declared that the son of a son's and of a grandson's daughter, and the son of a brother's and of a nephew's daughter, and so forth, claim succession, in tho order of proximity, before the maternal grandfather ; for they also confer benefits by the oblation of funeral cakes. But had benefits
- The opinions of the others will be given in the appendix, if reccived in time.
K 3
