VYAVASTHA'-DARPANA. 443 a partition made between her only son and his three half brothers, and that she was to look to him for her maintenance. If Shambhu Chandra, the son of Gangá Charan and Joyá Dásí, had died in the lifetime of his father, it seemed to be agreed, (Joyá Dási having died before her husband,) that Joymani, the surviving wife of Gangá Charan, would have been entitled to his estate; but Shambhu Chandra having survived his father, it was held that his father's estate vested in him, and that Joymani (not being his mother although the wife of his father) eould not take from him, (Shambhu Chndra,) but that his father's mother (Karunāmoyi) was his heir. It was also declared that Dási Dási, the widow of Badan Chánd, (he not having left a son,) succeeded as his heir, and was in his right entitled to one fourth part of Krishnamohan’s estate. It was therefore ordered that the estate of Krishnamohan be divided into four equal parts or shares, and that Attà Ram, the only son of Krishnamohan by Lakkhyi Priya’, do take one of the said four parts or shares in severalty. of the other three parts it was ordered that Karunamoys do take one as the heir of her grandson Shambhu Chandra, that Da'sí Dasi do tako one as the heir of her husband Badan Chand—and that Kala Chand do take one as the survivor of Krishnamohan's sons. This partition having been made, it was farther declared that Karuna moyí was entitled to a fourth part of the three parts which had been so divided, the third part which she had taken upon partition contributing to make up the said fourth part. It then stood thus, Karunamoyi the repre - g * * +* * * 臀 همایی * ബ ബ് گیاه sentiative of Sliambhu Chandra, Dasi Dasi the representative of Badan Chand, and Kaola Chand the surviving son of Krishnamohan, having come to a partition---Karuna‘moyi, as mother of Shanabhu ് ു. യ് . میی جنيه Chandra’s father, as mother of Dasi Dasi's husband, and as-mother of Kala Chand, bçcame, upon a partition, entitled to a share equal to that of the several partitioners. The three parts were therefore again to be consolidated and then divided into four, of which Karmnámoyi as mother was to - , * * - -* ۶ی ۔یہ۔ have one,—the same Karunānoyi as representing her grandson, one—Dasi Dasi as representing & e * مايو عوي هیچ her husband, one—afid Kala Chand in his own right, one. As to Joymani, she has a right to maintenance out of her husband’s estate, and may follow it for the purpose of obtaining her right into the hands of Karuna moyi. S. C. Cons. H. L. pp. 64–68. Guru prassil Bose v. Shib Chandra Bose and others. In this case, the right of a woman to come in for a share upon partition made by her son and grandsons was questioned. The case, so far as it relates to the present point, was shortly this. Krishna Rám Bose died leaving two sons, viz. Guru Prasad, the complainant, and Madan Gopás: who before the filing of this bill had died, leaving six sons.—Krishna Ram left a widow, named Khanjani Dasi, who was the mother of Guru Prasād and Madan Gopal.—Upon a partition prayed as between Guru prasad, and the sons of Madan Gopal, (that is, between Khanjani's son and grandsons,) the question arose. It was admitted by all the Pandits, that she would have been entitled to one third of Krishna Ram’s (her husband's) estate, if the partition had bđền made by her sons Guru Prasad and Madan Gopal. As to the point at issue, some Pandits declared, the partition having been postponed until after the death of Madan Gopal, that Khanjani was not entitled to any share. Others declared that her right was the same, partition having been made between her son and grandsons, as it would have been had the partition been made, in the life-time of Madan Gopal, between her two sons. The Court made further inquiry, and obtained the best information;–we were ultimately satisfied that,upon a partition by her son and grandsons, Khanja Cust’ bearing on the Vyavasthá, Nos. 128 & 138.
