VYAWASTHA-DARPANA, 814 able to the samána-pravaras: the succession of the samáta-gotras may, however, be deduced from the above passage, they being included among the samána-frararas. But to be heirs to a woman's paculium, persons of the above descriptions should he inhabitants of the sané village with her. It has subsequently been laid down in the said work that, “failing all these, in the case of property of a bráñmaní woman, hrážmamas, inhabitants of the same village, exceedingly learned in the Pedas, are entitled to the succession. But in the case of the property of women of the Kshetriya and other tribes, the king is exclusively entitled to the inheritance.” This also appears to have been established in accordance with the order of succession to the property of males, as laid down in that book, wherein it will however be found that, even to the property of women of the k«hetriya and other classes, rismonas of the above description succeed before the king, and that the king can nover succeed to a bránahí's property, which must he taken by a bráhuana, See anse, pp. 280–293, Legal opinions desirered in, and admissed hy, she several courts of judicature, and era. mined and anorared of, by Sir IFilliam Hiltonaghten. Q. A woman, having'purehased some landed property with her own funds, died leaving ams and a grandson, whose father died before her. In this case, will the whole property left by her devolve on her sons, or has the grandson any right to share it with his uncles 2 R. Under the circumstances above stated, the sons of the deceased woman are entitled to A woman's proper. dy goes to her Ron», to the exclusion of died has no right to inheritanee, Should there be any maiden daughter, a small portion must he her grandson, whose father tied before her her entire esta" which had been acquired by herself. The grandson whose father previously given to defray her nuptial expenses,t Authorities.— Man" -" When the mother is dead, let all the uterint brothers and uterine sisters equally divide the maternal estate.” Daeca Court of Appeal, May 21st, S11. Raghunandan Sarma’ rersm. Gopi Nath Bhatia. cha'rjya nnil others, M ven. lI, L. vol. 11. Ch. III. Casp. 1, p. 121. Q. A IIindoo, on the marriage of his daughter, gave her one bron of land is ( joutuka) populiar property, which she enjoyed during her life-time. She was survived by a daughter and son, the latter of whom took and retained possession of the property. Before his death, he gave the land in question to a stranger, his sister's son being then living : after his death, it did not clearly appear who had performed his funeral obsequies. Under these circumstances, was the alienation by the son valid 2 R. The property in question helonged of right to the daughter of the original donee; The daughter ni and her son having no proprietory right in the same, any alienation of the property by hiia was her e inherits the invalid * inother'8 peculiar prosłWäłł{}, 总 perty, in preference Moorshedabad Court of Appeal, Goureenath v. Koonjinadhub. Maen. H. L. vol. II. to the dou Cha. III. Case. 8, p. 126.
- See W. Da Kra. Sang p. 29. t. It appears that the property in this case, though acquird by the woman, was not of the natura termed her stridhan or penulium, and the descent of it was consequently not governed by the rules applicable to that species of property. Had this been the case, the daughter would have been a coheir with the sons.--Note by Sir. W. Macnaghten.
This vyavasthä agroes neither with the rules governing the descent of stridhan, nor with those *pplicable to inheritance in general. Although the authority quoted regards stridhan, yet the vyavasthā * question is not according to the rules governing such property, as, in that case, the daughter would *ed to an equal portion with any of the sons: on the other hand, that is, in case the property had * deemed to be an inheritance, and not stridhan, the grandson whose father is dead would have been * coheir with his uncles. -
