পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৪৩৫

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

WYAVASTHA-DARPANA 313 On consideration of the above answers of their pandits, the Court held that, according to the family eustom, sanctioned by the Hindu law, the respondent was the rightful successor, as Jubaráj, to the late Rājā; but as, according to established usage, and under the provisions of section 2, Reg. X. 1800, the Zemindaree is not liable to division, the Court at the same time provided in the judgment that respondent should hold the Zemindaree, subject to the usual charge for maintenance of members of the family and other established disbursements.” Rám Ganga Deo, appellant, versus Durgā Mani Jubarāj, respondent 24th March 1809. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I. p. 270, See also the following cases:— y - Arjun Mánik Thákur and others versus Rám Gangá Deo. 24th March 1820. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. II. p. 189. Rani Sumitrá versus Rám Gangá Mánik. 26th July 1820. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. III. p. 40. This custon, by which the succession to landed estates invariably devolves on a single heir, without division, has been recognized and declared legal by Reg. X. of 1800. A formal enactment was not perhaps necessary as far as the Hindu law is concerned, that law itself providing for exceptions to its general rules, by declaring that particular customs shall supersede general laws. “A decision must not be made solely by having recourse to the letter of written codes, since, if no decision were made according to the reason of the lawł, there might be a failure of justice.” Wrihaspati. IV. A claim to an estate on the plea of family usage, whereby a brother succeeds a brother to the prejudice of surviving sons, disallowcd, on proof that such was not the family usage, but only in one instance the brother had seized on and maintained his title by violence. Pratāp Deb versus Sarbba Deb Rāykat. 19th January 1818. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. II. p. 249. I. The Bengal law of inheritance was held to be applicable where a family had migrated from Mithilá and resided for generations in Bengal, and had not uniformly observed the religious ordinances of Mithilá, and the contested lands were situated in Bengal. Rājchandra Náráyan Choudhuri versus Goculchandrá Guha. 22nd June 1801. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I. p. 43. * II. But claimants to an inheritance, who had migrated from Mithilá and had continually practised the usages of Mithilá in every respect, were, on reference to the decision in the above case, held to be entitled to this benefit of the laws of Mithilă. Gangá Datt Jhā versus Srínárayan Ráy and another. 24th April 1812. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. II. p. 11. III. The same point was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Ratchepati Datta Jhā and others versus Rájendra Nārāyan and another. 12th February 1889. 2 Moore Ind. App, p. 182. IV. Where a family of Bengali Shādra Sudgops had migrated to Mithilá at a remoto period, and it was proved by the evidence that they had adopted the laws and customs of Mithilá, the Mithilä law of inheritance was held to be applicable. Râni Padmávati versus Bābu Dulár Singh and others. 30th June 1847. M. S. Notes of P. C. Cases—See Morley's Digest, Vol. I. p. 832. V. A family of Sudgop Brahmans, who had, many years previously to the institution of the original suit, migrated to Midnapore, were, upon proof that they retained their laws and religious observances, held to be entitled to the benefit of the Bengal laws of inheritance. Itáni Srimati Debi versus Râni Kunda Lată and others. Dec. 1847. Notes of P. C. Cases—See Morley's Digest, Vol. I. p. 332.

  • The principle of this decision corresponds with the rule prescribed in section 2, Reg. X. 1800, that regulation 11

1793, shall not be considered to su or affect any established usage, which inay have obtained in the Jangle Mahals of Midnapore, or other districts, by which the succession to landed estates, the proprietor of which may die intestate, has hitherto been considered to devolve to a single heir, to the exclusion of the other heirs of the deceased. Regarding the appointment of a Jabaráj, as a virtual ႕*ိ 6, regulation XI. 1798, which allows any actual proprietor of land to bequeath or transfer his or her entire landed estates to one or more persona, in exclúsion of all others, bowill, or other writing, or verbally; provided that the bequest or transfer 器 驚 l 端 to the regulations of the British Government, nor contrary to the Hindu or Mahomedan law. S. D. A. р. Vol. 1. р. жив. - + Or according to immemorial usage; for the word “Jukti" admits both senses. See Colebrooke's Digest, Vol. II. p. 128. A 4 the succession, the decree in this case may also be considered within the spirit of Section. Сивея bearing on the vyavasthé No. 153.