পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/১৭৩

VYAVASTHA2DARPANA. 47 Q. A person died, leaving a widow and a brother of the half blood. Subsequently to his death, the widow violated the hitherto unsullied bed of her husband, and had a child by a paramour of another class, while, the brother's conduct was consistent with his religion : in this case, which of the two is entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased ? Supposing the widow during the lifetime of her husband to have cohabited with a stranger, and to have therefore been expelled from the family, and to have lost her reputation, has such widow any right to inherit her husband's property? R. It is , the general doctrine, that the virtuous widow of a man who dies leaving mo heir down to the great grandson, succeeds ; but that if she, on the death of her lord, be faithless to his bed, she has no right of succession : consequently the widow in such case would be excluded by her husband's half brother. So in the case of her having acted unchastely while her husband was living. The authorities for this opinion laid down in the Diyabhāga and other books of law are Vuriraspati ; Karyavana ; Vitihat Manu ; & Nasirada. (See Vyav p. 31, 33, 35). Zillah Hooghly. Macn. H. L. vol. II. sect. 2, case 3. (p. 19, 20). Q. There were two brothers, of whom one died, leaving son's who are still alive, and the other died leaving a son, who also died, leaving a widow him surviving. The widow had become a prostitute, and had violated her husband's bcd. In this case, is she entitled to inherit her husband's estate, and if not, on whom does his property devolve * R. If it be proved that the widow in fact, did not keep her husband's bed unsullied she has no title to his property, and ought to be expelled from his house. His estate, in default of heirs down to the uncle, should devolve on his uncle's sons. This opinion is in conformity to the authority contained in the Dáyabhāga, &c. Zillah 24 Pergunnahs. J uly 18th. 1811, Macn. II. L. vol. II. sect. 2, case. 4 (p. 21). 16 The widow as heir to her husband takes such property as he possessed or was entitled to when he died; but she does not represent her husband in respect of succession to an estate which would have devolved upon her husband had he outlived its owner. A Hindoo died leaving four sons: the first and second of whom died childless, leaving their widows; the third died leaving neither a widow nor an issue ; and the fourth lost his title to inheritance by being adopted into another family. The widows of the first and second brothers claimed their husbands' share together with that of their husbands' brother in the joint estate ; though they did not demand separate possession of the same during sixteen years, but allowed them to remain with other parts of the estate, under the general control and management of another of the sharers (a member of the family) and received provision in land for their expenses. Held that as the appellants did not separate themselves from the managing sharer or onsent to relinquish the share of their husbands, the circumstance of their (appellants') having suffered the claim to remain unagitated does not involve forfeiture of their share in the joint estate, though it is held by their kinsman for sixteen years: the widows however are entitled to succeed to the shares of their husbands respectively, and not to the share of their husbands' brother; because he survived their husbands, and consequently his share devolved on his legal heirs. Râni Bhavani Debi and Răni Mahāmāyā Debi, Appellants, versus Rānī Sūrjamani Debi. 12th May 1806. S. D. A. Rep. vol. I. page 135. - ‘An unchaste widow forfeits all right to her husband's property. And may be expelled from his house. Vyavasthå. Case bearing on the vyavasthā No. 16.