VYAVASTHA1.DAT&PANA 7 lIere the expressions “father” and “son” (severally) indicate any relation." Då, bhá. Ch. I. para. 3. 3. (i) The phrase “the evistence (of the son) at the time of the father's death’ indicates also the foetal existence of an heir in the womb. The birth of the infant must however be awaited ; because, the issue, if a son, would at oncC succeed, if a daughter, its succession after the mother is contingentt ; whilst a still-born child would not in any way affect the inheritance. s1: .^i, in is m N x TA n k A^i. \ N kx^is \ im the following instances has admittcd the right of the child in the womb.--In his exposition of N A R v I's s text-“where a division of thic paternal estate is instituted by sons, that becomes a topic of litigation, called by the wise, partition of herit, ge’—he says • the term by sons is merely illustrative, for if it exclusively mcan pluratify and agency of sons. it cannot comprehcnd the partition made bctween two (parceners), by the intervcntion of an orbitrator. and (on account) of the child in the womb' . He says also : “ the text of Gots x1 v., which is cited in .1/i/ai/ shari, is unauthorised ; or, if it lic authorised, it relates to the case of one, whose father dies while the child is in thic moth, r's womb.” Sir R H is its v's commentary on Dayabhaiya, Sans. pp. 2, 4, 18. See also .3//, Moha,”, Sans. pp. 221, 222, and the authorities which are quoted in the Section treating of partition, and which show that the posthumous son has heritable right to the patcruil grandfather's property. Honce the child conceived in the womb does not inherit, but it debars or suspends (for the time, the succession of other heirs (to the property to which it will succeed if born a son alive) ; for. were it held otherwise, (viz. that any inheritance or property vested in the child in utero, immediately after the extinction of the father’s right,) then, on its dying in whero, or abortion taking place. the mother would inherit as its heir and successor, but this is inconsistent with the law. and contrary to
- lsage.
IV. I Iowever, according to KATY \ y \X \'s text—“ Let them deposit, free from disbursement, in the hands of hutshot and u is rus, the property of such as have not attained maturity, as well as of those who are absent ; thus the property of minors should be preserved until they attain their full age,” (Colch. Dá. bhá. Ch.. III. Scct, I. para. 17)–the propcrty, which a child conceived in thc womb can inherit on its being born a son (alive) should be deposited with its bandhu; and waitras.
- That is to say, the expression “ father is in ant to signify the predecessor or former owner, and son `` is meant to indicate any relative included in the order of succession as entitled to inherit. Thus (at the time of death of the former owner) the survival of the relation, entitled to succeed. is the can-, “l his right.
† See 1)aughter’s Succession.
- A share of the heritage with the brothers shall be allotted to those widows who have no offspring, out are supposed to be preguant, to be held by them until they (severally) bear sons. V Asist A. Willows here signify wives of deceased brothers. If they be supposed likely to bear sons, shares must be also allotted to them : consequently, the meaning is, that shares are only allotted to the widows for the 'rhoqf qf thri/- sons (to be born). Vide ('olob I)ig. Vol. III. p. st;.
The meaning of the words “bandhu " and “mitra will be given in the Sections treating of partition, \vavact há A t; ' ' -г . . . . V W .1\ , , - * i.
