VYAWASTBA6DARPANA of Q. There were six brothers, four of whom were by the same mether. They lived together with their father as a joint family, and one of the four uterina brothers (the second) died before his fathers leaving a widow nine years old. Óf the three surviving brothers of the whole blood, the eldest acquired some property movable and immovable, with his separate funds and exclusive labour. The widow of the second brothér now claims one fourth of her late husband's eldest brother's acquisitions, and the share of his ancestral property. In this case, is such widow entitled to a share in the property claimed P
- R. Under the circumstances stated, the widow has no right to claim any sliare of her husband's ancestral property, or of his brother's acquisitions, but she must be maintained by the heirs and representatives of her father-in-law. This opinion is conformable to the Dáyabhāga. Calcutta Court of Appeal, December 4th, 1821. Macn. H. L. Vol. II. Cha. II. Case VIII. (pp. 116, 117).
Q. A person died, leaving two sons by one wife (who died before him), and a widow and her two daughters, and subsequently to his death one of the sons diod. There are now surviving a son of his first wife, and a widow and her two daughters; and, supposing the widow to have received no portion of the property from her step-son, in this case, is she entitled to any share of the estate; and if so, what is the extent of her right P R. The widow is only entitled to a proper maintenance from her step-son; and if her two daughters have not been disposed of in marriage, they will also have some share of their father's wealth to defray their nuptial expenses. Should they, after marriage, be in want of naintenance, in consequence of thcir husband's inability to support them, they must be provided with food and raiment by their half brother. This is conformable to the Diyabhūga and other authorities. Zillah 24 Pergunnahs, January 24th, 1818. Maen. H. L. Völ. II. Ch. II. Case X. (pp. 117, 118). Q. A widow instituted a suit against her father-in-law and her husband's younger brother, setting forth, that her said father-in-law had some acquired ancestral landed property, and that he had two sons, the elder being her deceased husband and the younger her deceased husband's full brother; that her hughand died before his father and brother, leaving her and her two daughters, one of whom is since dead but is survived by three minor sons, and that she claims only sixty rupees per annum due on account of her proper maintenance, at the rate of five rupees per mensem. In this case, is the widow, whose husband died before his father and brother, competent to bring an action against her father-in-law and brother-inlaw for her maintenance P Supposing the plaintiff's husband to have been separated from his father and brother during his lifetime, in this case is the widow competent to claim her maintenance.from the individuals abovementioned P R. A son dying before his father, his widow, living virtuously and obediently to her husband's family, is entitled to obtain maintenance from her father-in-law or other successor to his property; but if her husband have received his share from his father, and been separated from him, she cannot in that case claim maintenance as against him or his heir. This opinion is consonant to the Vivádárnavasetu and other authorities. Zilla Beerbhoom, August 14th, 1823. Kamalmani Dási versus Bodhnārāyan Majumdår and amother. Maon. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. II. Case XI. (pp. 118, 119). A widow whose husband died beforo his father han a legal claim to maintenance only. A som, om succeeding to his father's estate, Inust maintain his step-motherand ner daughters. The widow of a separated brother is not entitled to maintenance faom her late husband's family. Q. Does the right of succession which an insane person would have had to his father, provided he . had been of sound mind, devolve on his mother or on his wife P And supposing such insane person to . have had a son, born subsequently to the death of his (thé'insane's) father, which son is since dead; in this case, was the grandson entitled to inherit immediately from his grandfather by reason of his father's insanity; and if so, on his death; has his mother any title to succeed him P - -
