VYAVAŞ'PHA@DARPANA. I5 I. Braja Rām Sāhū had five sons—Hari Krishna Sáhū, Joy Krishna Sáhá, Manohar Dás Sáhá Ramá Kánta Sáhū, and Rām Kánta Sáhá—Joy Krishna went to Jessore in 1197 B.S. and no tidings were ever heard of him afterwards. Braja Itäm died in 1200 B. S. and after his death, Joy Krishna's wife sued for her husband's share in all the property acquired while her husband and his brothers were united. The Zillah Judge sceing that the funeral obsequies of Joy Krishna took place after a lapse of twelve years from the date of his disappearance; and that his father Braja Rám died in 1200 B. S. decreed the plaintiff's claim on the groupd of her father-in-law having died before her husband's funeral obsequies were performed. The Provincial Court of Dacca reversed this decree on the ground of Joy Krishna being missing during the life-time of his father, and consequently his wife and grand son (daughter's son) having no claim to the property acquired by 'raja Rám. A special appeal from this decision was admitted by the Sudder Court in consequence of their Pandits delivering a Vya vastha stating—that if a man is missing during the lifetime of his father, the Hindu-law allows twelve years for his re-appearance; that if three or four years after his disappearance his father dies, his wife is not immediately entitled to share in the property of his father, (the wife of the son not being mentioned in any of the treaties on inharitence as heir to the property of her father-in-law); but after a lapse of twelve years, if no tidings be heard of her husband, (and if there be no son, grand son, or and great grand son), she may claim her liusband's share of his father's property. But at the time of trying the case, the Court having perused a deed of partition entered into by Braja Rám, and also other documents, referred the case to their Pandits for their opinium ; and the Pandits on seeing these papers, declared that in the present case, the wife and grand son of Joy Krishna had no right to any thing, but the sum fixed in the said deed for their maintenance, the will of the owner being all that is macessary in cases of self acquired property, and that a division made of such property by the owner, who is not a minor, and is of sound mind, cannot be disturbed. The Court accordingly affirmed the decision of the Provincial Court.” Musst. Ayában (since deceased) versus Ráj Krishna Sáhlū and others, 25th April, 1820. S. D. A. R. Vol. III. p. 28. II. In the case of Rám Náráyan Bandyopádhyáy (Banerjea) versus. Bala Rám Bandyopádhyāy the doctrine of presuming the death of an absent person unheard of, after a lapse of twelve years (from the day of his departure) has been recognized and accepted by the Judges of the Supreme . Court; and it has been declared by the second Pandit of the Sudder Dewany Adawlut, the Pandit of the Provincial Court of Calcutta, the head Pandit of the College, and another Pundit “that he who has absented himself for the period of twelve years, and of whom no intelligence has been during that time, must he considered as certainly dead ; and should he even return after that time, he had forfeited the rights of the livingt.—East's notes, case 85. Morley's Dig. Vol. II. p. 152.
- Although the decision in case turned on a matter of fact, rather than on a point of Hindu-law, yet it may be observed as a rule of the liindu-law, that a missing person shall not be considered ilead until the period of twelve years shall have elapsed from the datā of his disappearance. In the present case as the father of the plaintiff's husband died before his son's death could be presumed, his sou, that is the plaintiff’sousband, must have been cousidered entitled to inherit, and through him the plaintiff, had there been no *pecial agreement to obstruct the ordinary course of successions.
f The particulars of this are given in the section treating of exclusion from inheritance. Савез. Bearing on the Vyavastha No. 6.
