পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৬৫

VYAVASTHAT-DARPANA 139 1 Lakkhi Närain, the proprietor of a four anna share of the property in dispute, died leaving three sons, Shám Chandra, Gobinda Chandra, and Rudra Chandra. Gobind Chandra, the second brother, died in the Bengal year 1190, childless, but leaving his widow. His two, brothers took possession of his share of the estate, alleging that he had made a gift of it to them, but his widow Rādhāmani sued them, and ultimately obtained a decree in her favor in the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut ; and she got possession of the portion enjoyed by her husband during his life-time. Shám Chandra, the eldest brother, and father of the plaintiff Shambhu Chandra, died in 1819, and Rādhāmani, the widow of Gobinda Chandra, died in 1821. The claim of the plaintiff was for half the property left by Rádhámani, to which she had succeeded on the death of her husband by a decree of the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff, that his father and the defendant had entered into an agreement, to the effect that, on the death of Rádhámani, they should equally divide between them the property held by her, and that, in the event of either dying before Rádhámani, the representative of the deceased brother should share equally with the survivor. It was urged, in reply, that no such agreement as that alleged by the plaintiff had ever been executed, and that, according to the Hindu law, the plaintiff had no legal claim to any portion of the property left by Rádhánani, ို father having died during her life-time. The third Judge of the Dacca court, without reference to the authenticity or otherwise of the agreement alleged to have been entered into by the partics, considering the decision of the case to turn chiefly on a point of Hindu law, put the following question to the Pandit: On the death of a Hindu widow, who had a life-interest in her husband's estate, the claimants to such estate are her husband's brother, and the son of a deceased brother of her husband. Under these circumstances, which of these two claimants is entitled to inherit the property P The Pandit of the Dacca court replied, that they were entitled to participate equally ; but the Judge having some doubt as to the accuracy of this exposition of the law, the case was referred to the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, with a request that the opinion might be reported on by the law officers of thise Court. The law officers, Sobhá Rāy Shāstrī and l{ám Tanu Sarmă, having perused the question and reply, verified the exposition delivered in the court below, stating that the plaintiff was, in this case, entitled to his share; as a son whose father is dead is entitled to share the inheritance with his uncles, agreeably to the following text of KATYA YANA, cited in the Dáyabhāga, “should a son die before partition, his share shall be allotted to his son, provided he had received no sortune from his grandfather.” - 命 - On the receipt of the above verification of the opinion of the Pandit of his own court, and considering it established that an agreement was entered into as stated by the plaintiff, the third Judge of the 194cca court of appeal gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Rudra Chandra Choudhuri, being dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, and the cause came to a hearing on the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th of July 1821, before the olliciating Judge (W. Dorin), who recorded his opinion to the following effect: This claim appears to have been instituted for the recovery of half the estate which was held by Gobinda Chandra Choudhuri, and which, on his death, devolved on his widow Rádhámani. A decree has been passed by the court below in favour of the respondent, partly on the ground of an alleged special agreement, and partly on the general law of inheritance; but with reference to the question of law, it appears necessary to investigate the matter more fully. From the English version of the Dáyabhāga, of the Dáyakarma Sangraha. îî # Piráda Bhangárnara, compiled by JAGANNA'tila TARRAPAs&#x NANA, and translated by Mr. Colebrooke, as well as from the Vyavasthis delivered by the Pandits of this Court, in the case of Rudra Chandra Singh, petitioner, in the case of Sri Nārāyan Rāy and others versus Bhayā Jhā, and from the opinion delivered by the Pandits in this case, agreeably to the requisition of the Dacca court of appeal, it appears to be an established maxiin of law, that, in the case of landed property devolving on a woman by the death of her husband, the right of her husband's heir begins to accrue from the date of the death of the widow'." from the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, of the husband's heirs, they only on Pe.gntitled to the inheritance who are living at the time of the widow’s death. The right of him who dies oro.” life-time is entirely forfeited, and cannot devolve on his son. This doctrine has been established by former legal expositions. Although there is some difference between the Hindu low *.*.*.* Phoneal and the rest of Bougal, yet there is no difference of opinion on this point, an agreeing that * widow succeeds in default of a son, grandson and great grandson, and, although the ***** from transferring the property, yet she is clearly an heir, and has an indefeasible right of successio:1. Cuscs ممبر bearing on the vva»ast'. No. 45.