vyAvAstúA!-DARPANA. 50} o t*ುಕ್ತ rulesthat respect the tight of associated and unassociated parceners have also been-sett forth in the sections treating of inheritance of brothers and the rest. See ante, pp. 187-209. * - •. - 爭 . " بی ۔ . . . ...' - Legal opinions delivered in, and adnited by, several Courts of Judicature,
- and examined and approved of by Sir William Macnaghten. , q. i. There were three uterine brothers, who during the ifetime of their father caused him to make a partition of his entire estate among them, and from that time one brother lived apart, and the othér two lived together as an united family: subsequently to the father's death,one of the sunited þrothers died, leaving no male issue, and his exeguial rites were performed by his united brother. In this case are the surviving brothers equally entitled to his property; or is the brother who lived in a state of union with the deceased alone entitled to the succession, to the exclusion of the other brother who lived separated? r
R. l. The brothers having separated, if one of them die without heirs,” his estate shall be equally shared by his brothers, provided there be no particular cvidence of a re-union having taken place between the deceased and the brother with whom he resided till his death. The doctrines for this are laid down in the Dáyabhāga and other authorities Q. 2. If there be evidence of an express and distinct re-union, and one of the re-united brothers die, is the associated brother alone entitled to his estate, or will the unassociated brother share with him? R. 2. Under the circumstances above stated, the associated brother is alone entitled to the succession, to the entire exclusion of the unassociated brother. Authorities— JAGNYAVALKYA:—“A re-united (brother) should keep the share of his re-united (coheir), who is deceased.” a so- - £illah Hooghly. Maon. H. I. vol. II. ch. 6, Cage 24 (pp. 178, 174). Q. A person having assigned a moiety of his self-acquired landed estate to his sons by one wife, separated himself from them, and with the other half continued to live in a state of union. with his son by anorther wife. On the death of the father, are the sons entitled to an equal portion of the estate left by him? - - R. Under the circumstances stated, the disposition of the estate made by the father will hold good, if not made through perturbation bf mind occasioned by disease or, the like, or through irritation against any one of his sons, or through partiality for the child of a favourite wife, in either of which cases each of his sons would be entitled to an equal share of the estate; otherwise, on his death, the sons who were separated from him during his lifetime have no claim to the inheritance. w o W. * - . . - A. cn H. L. vol. II. ch. 1, Case 12. (p. 16). • Here by thementìón of without heirs, it. be understood, that the person died leaving no heir down to the mother." A Re-united brother entirely . excludes an unassociated one. eSons legally separated 驚 their father, have not, on his death, any claim to inherit with a son not separated.
