পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/১৬৫

vyavaSTHA-DARPANA. (k) The phrase obtain entire share’ means that the wife shall obtain her husband's entire share, not that she shall obtain her own entire share. Coleb. Dá, bhā. Ch. XI. Sect. I. para. 8. (k) “Entire share"—that is, the whole share of her husband, and not a portion adequate to her maintenance. Dá. T. p. $8. w -- * * The doctrine of other schools than that of Bengal is, that the widow is not entitled to succeed if her late husband was individed or having been separated (from his co-heirs) had become reunited. But Jimútavāhana, after commenting on the text of Vrihat Manu, and refuting the arguments on which the doctrine of the other Schools is founded, lays down, as established law, the result of his discussion, thus: “Therefore, the doctrine of Jitendriya, who affirms the right of the widow to inherit the whole property of her husband leaving no male issue, should, without attention to the circumstance of his being separated from his co-heirs or reunited with them, for no such distinction is specified), be respected"* Coleb. Dá. bh6. Ch. XI. Sect. 1 para. 46. Such is also the opinion of Raghunandana and other compilers of law of the Bengal School, who are in fact followers of Jímútaváhana. - I. Digambar Röy, son of Krishna Dcb Rāy, sued the sons of his eldest brother Kāshī Nāth Rāy for his share in the joint estate. After the pleadings had been filed by the parties, a claim was set up by Musst. Courmani, widow of Rajchandra Räy, another son of |Krishna Deb Răy, for her husband's share of the undivided ancestral estate. Determined that the ancestral estate of Krishna Deb Dáy should be divided into three shares, whereof Musst. Gourmani in right of her succession to Rajehandra Rāy, the heirs of Kāshináth, and the respondent Digambar Rāy, should each receive one share. Káshíprasád Ráy and others-versus—Digambar Ráy. 28th May 1817, S. D. A. Rep. vol. II. p. 237. II. Brindăbanchandra left two sons—Kripánanda and Brajānanda. The latter died leaving a . widow, named Dokours, and two minor children—a son (named Gobinda Chandra) and a daughter, both of whom died before their mother, Kripananda died leaving two sons—Mahānunda Gosáin, husband of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Golock Chandra, both of whom survived the widow of their uncle Brajananda. After the death of the widow of Brajānanda, the brothers Mahānanda and Goluck Chandra held joint possession of the ancestral estate. The Pundit of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut being referred to, replied “that on the death of Braja manda his estate devolved on his son Gobinda Chundra, that on the death of the latter, without son, son's son, and son's son's son, wife, daughter, d aughter's son, and father, his share of the property would fall in to his mother Dokouri ;—that under the circumstances stated, Dokouri had no power to alienate the property, which, after her death, would go to her husband's heirs (Mahananda and Goock Chundra), and that Hemlatá Deba the widow of Mahānanda succeeded to her husband's estate.” Under this Vyavasthā the court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff (Hemlatà) as heiress to her husband, who was shown by the Pundit's exposition of the law, to have been joint heir with his brother (Golak Chundra) of Brajānanda's share of the ancestral property on the death of his widow Dokaurs. Hemlata Debi versus Goluck Chandra Gosain, 1st July 1843. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. VII. p. 108, III. Lal Behari Dhar died leaving a widow, the defendant, and a son, Choitanchuaran Dhar. The son died, childless, leaving his widow the lessor of the plaintiff i. e. the real plaintiff whose title is the subject of the suit. The defendants set up a verbal last will of Lal Behari Dhar, which is proved by one witness: two other witnesses tendered are rejected, because they claim to be legatees under the alleged will. In reply, declarations inconsistent with, and subsequent to, the date of the will by Lal Behari Dhar just before his decease, are proved. • See—Coleb. Dig. vol. III. p. 485. Cases bearing on the Vyavasthá No. 14