পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৫৩৩

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

vyAvASTHA-DARPANA. 41 I Q. of four brother, who had received - 80m6, property, movable and immovable, "by gift from their material grandfather, the eldest died, iesving a son (the complainant), and then their mother died. Subsquently to her death, two of the surviving three brothers died, one leaving a daughter, who was mother of male issue, and the other a widow, as their heirs. A part of the property is in joint tenancy, and the other portion is separate, and in the exclusive possession of the several individuals specified. The complainant, being the son of the eldest brother, sues for partition of the estate; and the defendant, one of the brothers, admitting the inchoate right of the plaintiff, states, that while he (the defendant) is living, his brother's son cannot have Pro perty having been given ; by a man to his four grandsons, and one of them dying, the son · of the deceased " is entitled to claim partition: from his uncles. an equal share with him. In this case, is the property a fit subject of partition while one of the four brothers exists, or will the surviving brother be entitled to a superior portion ? R. All the grandsons were equally entitled to the gift of their maternal grandfather; and should one of them die during the lifetime of his mother, leaving a son, his son has the exclusive right to the property to which his father was entitled, whether divided or undivided. The foklowing is the doctrine in the Mitákshará, Dāyabhāga, and other books of law. VRIHAspati : “All the brethren shall be equal sharers of that which is acquired by them in concert.” - - zillah Hoogly. April 3rd, 1821. Maen. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 5. case 5 (pp. 150,151) Q. 1. A person had three sons, the eldest of whom, having been separated from his father, lived apart. Afterwards the father died. In this case, are only those sons who lived with him, entitled to succeed him ; or have all his sons an equal right of succession ? R. 1. Supposing the father, by mutual free will and consent to have given some wealth out of his self-acquisitions to his eldest son, and separated him from his family ; in this case, on the death of the father, the eldest son has no right to get any additional portion of his father's acquisitions from his brothers. - r Authorities. The text of NATADA and Vniiias?Ati' eited in the D£yabîga and Wiedda-Chintanani ; “Shares which have been assigned by a father to his sons, whether equal, greater, or less, should be maintained by them; else they ought to be chastised.” “For such as have been separated by their father, with equal, greater, or less allotments of wealth, that is a lawful distribution : for the father is lord of all.” ü. 2. " fr there had been -no separation from the father, and the eldest son had left the family on account of a dispute which had taken place between his wife and the other members of the family; in this case, has the eldest son any right to share his father's estate? R. 2. Supposing the father not to have given any property to his eldest son, or to have made. any division of it, and the eldest son to have lived apart, then on the death of the father. all, his sons share the inheritance. * * * Authorina : : - The text of;3 Konovatrocited in the Boabor, “Let sons divide equally the effects and the debts, after the death of both parents” ” Moor"After the death of the father and the mother, the brethreh, being osembled, must divide qually the paternal estate; for they have not power over t while ‘their Porents live.” ‘’ One of three bons liaving se parated himself from the family, and taken a share during his father's lifetime, has no further claim on the estate. But mere living

apart does not

exclude.