পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড.pdf/৪৩১

WYAWAS THA-DARPANA. 1078 Question 3rd-The grandfather, by whose direction and consent the widow had adopted the son, after such adoption, havihg been displeased with his son's widow, made out a deed of gift in favor of his son-in-law, and put him (the donee) into possession of his entire landed property of both descriptions, ancestral and self-acquired. Is the deed of gift valid in such case, and is it an impediment to the adopted son's right of succession to the property? Question 4th.-Should the grandfather have executed the deed of gift in favor of his son-inlaw previously to the adoption, in this case will his property devolve on the adopted son or not ? Question 5th.-If the donor executed the deed of gift either in 1821 or 1222 B. S., and antedated it to 1218 B. S. by the collussion of his son-in-law, in this ease, will the deed of gift be held null and void by reason of such false entry, or will it be considered good and legal notwithstanding 2 * Reply lst.—If a Hindoo of Bengal die, leaving a daughter who is likely to have male issue, and an adopted son of his son, the son dying before his father, and a few years after that the daughter bear a son, in this case the adopted son is entitled to the succession, even though the - daughter and her son are living. However, a discrepancy exists in this point between the text of Decala, quoted in the Dávabháza, and that of Manu, who held the first rank among legislators. This opinion is delivered agreeably to the doctrine of Manu, Reply &nd.—A Hindoo widow, having obtained her husband's sanction, may adopt a son after ten years from the date of her husband's death, and the adoption is legal. Such adopted son is entitled to inherit from his adopting father's father; for there is no fixed period for adopting a child on the expiration of which the adoption can be held void. Reply 3rd–Should the widow of the son, with the consent of her late husband and his father, have adopted a son, and subsequently should the father, being displeased with his son's widow, have given his property movable and immovable to his son-in-law, the gift must be considered illegal, and the son-in-law can derive no right thereby to the property given. Authorities —“What has been given by men agitated with fear, anger, lust, grief, or the pain of an incurable disease, &c. must be considered as ungiven.” The passage of Márada cited in the Firádárnara-setu. Reply 4th-Though the grandfather, previouly to the adoption, have executed a deed of gift assigning his property to his son-in-law, yet the adopted son had acquired a prior title to the property, the boy ultimately adopted being entitled to all the rights of a posthumous son. Authorities.—“Even they who are born, and (yet) unborn, and they who exist in the womb, require funds for subsistence; the deprivation of the means for subsistence is reprehended.” The text of Man, quoted in the Dáyabhāga. Reply 5th-Should the donor in 1221 or 1222 B. S., have executed a deed of gift in favor of his son-in-law, and have antedated it to the year 1228 B. S. to defraud his son's adopted son, in this case the deed of gift must be held null and void, by reason of its containing a false entry. This Fyavastiá is in conformity to Manu, the Páyabhága, and other legal authorities as current in Bengal. - After perusing the opinion, the Second Judge recorded his judgment to the following effect— that it had been established that the adoption of the boy Iswur Chunder had taken place in the month of Aghan 1221 B.S., two months before the filing of the amended defence, the mention of a deed of gift in which, for the first time, could in consequence, only be looked on as an expedient