vyAvASTHA-DARPANA 993 defraying sacrifices; therefore distribute it among good men, not among women, ignorant men, and such as neglect their religious duties;"—a virtuous Brähmana is preferable to an ignorant one. 189 on failure of a virtuous Brámana, the property of a Brähmana Vyavathi. should be given even to a common Brähmana": In as much as the property of a Brähmana must never be taken by the king. Reason. 140. The common Bráhmana of the same village should however succeed Vyavasthā. first. In his default, a like Bráñmana of another village.” Since an inhabitant of the same village is to be preferred to the inhabitant of a different village.” Reason. Legal opinions delivered in, and admitted by, the several Courts of Judicature, and examined and approved of by Sir William Macnaghten. Q. On the death of a childless widow, who left apparently no heir, her property was seized by the ruling power, and a proclamation was issued for the appearance of her heir and representative within a certain period. After the expiration of the period fixed, a gosáin appeared, and presented a petition for the property, alleging that the widow was his father's disciple; and he also proved, by the testimony of his four pupils, that she was his father's follower: but, according to the established usage of this country, no gosáin has ever received any property of his disciple, and it does not appear, that in the instance of any disciples of a gosáin dying without an heir, such gosáin received his property under the jurisdiction of this court: under these circumstances, is the gosáin, according to law, entitled to succeed as her heir; and can he, as such, claim her property P w R. In default of heirs down to the Samánodakás, or kinsmen anied by the common libation of an alario, or spiritual water, the succession devolves on the spiritual teacher (A'châriya). The gotáin is the widow's Guruputtra, i. 醬 曼 辑 ● 娜 ی” . 's و __ په 峨 eirs according to the Hindu or the son of her spiritual guide. A Guru is not termed an A'châriya. If the widow was not of the law, but not a guru. In de JBráhmanioal order, her property should escheat to the king, who alone becomes heir. So MANU directs:– 黜 వీ: 醬 “The property of a Brähmana shall never be taken by the king: this is a fixed law. But the wealth of .ே 醬 驚 ့; he be of ?q^тпInficat order, the other classes, on failure of all heirs, the king may take.” Zillah Hooghly, April 3d. 1817. Macn. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. I. Sec. VII. case I. (pp. 100, 101.) Q. Balarám Sitá Dás, (a devotee,) had appropriated a building for religious worship, and had established in it an image of the deity. On his death, the plaintiff, who is the widow of the son of Priträm, his Purohit, or spiritual preceptor, preferred a claim to the temple in question; a son's son of the founder being then living. Under these circumstances, according to the Hindu law, is the claim of the plaintiff in virtue of the relinquishment or appropriation valid, or is the heir of the founder to be considered as owner of the temple P R. The building, with the deity, was relinquished to the Purohit, and not given to him; indeed, the founder having relinquished a building in which he had established an image of the deity, did in fact give that building to the deity; hence it belonged to the deity solely: for the deity existing therein, it was impossible to give it to another. By mere relinquishment, proprietary right cannot be established; and, consequently, as the Purohit himself never possessed any proprietary right, none can possibly appertain to the widew of his son. The appropriation, which was an auspicious act, is common to the . heirs of the founder, in whom the right of enjoyment is vested. City of Moorshcdabad. Lakkhi Th£kurani versus Keyml Panthi and others. Maon. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. I. Sec. 7, Case IV. (pp. 102, 108.)
- See Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. p. 587.
