VYAVASTHA'-DARPANA. 431
grandsons, or any. one of them, or by the heir of any of them (since deceased) as the case may be.” Srñma?ř Joynani Das and Das Das v Atna Ram Ghose and Kalachand Ghose. In this case, partition was ordered upon the prayer of awidow who succeeded by her husbaud's death to his share of an undivided estate. S. C. 10th December 1828. Cons. H. L. pp. 64 –66. THE MOTHER ENTITLED TO A shARE. I 尊 128 If, however, partition be made during the lifetime of the mother, then she will get a share equal to that of her (each) sont I. The mother on the geath of her husband takes a equal to that of (each of ) her sens.t —VRimi \sPATi. - (L'ase hearing on the Vyrvas:þá No. }**{j Yya v a»! haʼ Authority . II. The mother also, on the demise of the father, takes a share equal to her son’s-KATYAyANA. . مپ (i) Here since the term mother relates to natural parent,the stepmother does not participate, but she must be maintained with food and raimentt. 129 The equal participation of the mother with the brethren takgs effect, if no separate property have been given her by her husband and the rest : but if any have been given, she has halft (a share) * MAMAAAS SAAAAAS AMMAAA S - LLLSS S S SA SAS SSAS SSAS SSAS SSAS SSAS - S S S S S S AASAA S S AMMS SSSSSS MAMAAASA SSASAS SSAS AMSAMAAASAAAAS AAAASSAAAAAAS AAAAAS -- ASAAAAS SAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA S
- I£ father of A, B, and C be dead, leaving their mother I) surviving—If A, B, and C, shall then severally marry anddie, each leaying a widow and sons, surviving ; upon a partition between the sons of A, the sons of B, and the sons of C, the mother of A, B, and C, (i.e. 1),) shall take a grandson's share. Hut the widows of A, B, C will not be entitled to any share, unless their sons shall come to a partition among themselves. If the sons of A shall divide, then their mother (the widow of A) shall take a share ual to that of one of her sons. In like manner the widow of B will be entitled, if her sons shall divide; --but if the sons of C shall continue undivided, their mother will not be entitled to any share. Cons. H. I,. pp. 58,54. ' , - - o
ಶ್ಲಣ್ಣ W. Da. Kra. Saņg. pp. 102, 103. Coleb. Da. bha. p. 63. Daí. T. p. 16. Sir William Macnaghten (in his book on the Hindu Law, vol. I. page 50) treats of the right of the mother in partition ; but what he has written is insufficient and inaccurate as will be found by reference to the Kyavastha's and authorities herein contained. ... . - 叠 ‘. . ...The mother has a contingent right which may be enforced by her upon a partition of her busband's estate being made. Hér original right is te maintenance only—-which is to be suituble to th“ wealth of which her husband died possessed; but it is by the act of others that she becomes entitled to any specific share. The reason given for this is modern but satisfactory. She has a right to participate in all the comforts which are enjoyed by her family in its undivided state, and a legal as well as natural claim 蠶 protoction which may be derived frog, a union of her descendants. If therefore she is deprived of such advantages, it is but just that she should be enabled to take care of herself, and not be obliged to go from door to door for her support. The doctrine is rational, and I have not been able to discover that it is any where contested: Sir 'ိို့ Macnaghted's Considerations on the Isindu Law, p. 57. ‘.... It will have been seem that:io "cases of partition, the mother's right depends upon the parties by whorn the division may be made; that it must be made by her own descendants; and that the childlèss widow, orthewshow wie had borne daughters only, will not be entitled to participate in the event of her husband's descendants coming to a partition of his estate. Ibid. p. 57. - Vyavastha^
