পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৬৭

vxAvAstri A4. DARPANA I 41 with ra to the opinion furnished by the Panoots of this Court at the requisition of the Dacca Court of *śit is certain either that the question was not stated correctly, or that the purport of it was not cleasy understood by the law, officers. They must have concluded that the question was put presuming the right of Gobipda Chitడ్లీ's brothers to have accrued immediately op his death. Had this been the case, there could not have existed a doubt on the subjects tout the widow had the right during her life time, agreeably to the decree of this Court, without detriment, however, to the brothers' reversionary interest. The authority quoted is not applicable to the case in question, and the law, as hithert, expounded, is, that on the death of a chäfless widow, on whom hobustiodse property had devolved, her husband's brother is heir, to the exclusion of her hisband's brother's won. It is fit, however, that the Rondits should have an opportunity of explaining their meaning, and that the same question should again be proposed to them in the following terms: There are three brothers, joint proprietons of an estate of which they have equal shares. iếhe isecond brother, by name Gobinda Chandra, dies childless, leaving a widow named Rádhámani, who, by the law of inheritance, succeeds to his portion of the estate, and enjoys it during her life-time. Previously to her death, the eldest brother dies leaving a son. Under these circumstances, on whom does the property devolve on the death of Rádhámani, conformably to the law of inheritance P Does it go to the younger brother of her husband who was living at the. time of her death, or to the son of his deceased elder brother P In other words, the second brother dying childless, and his widow taking his share of the estate by inheritance, and holding it during her life-time, subject to the reversionary interest of her husband's heirs, from what date does the right of such heirs begin to accrue, from the death of the widow, or from the death of her husband P. The Pandits were further desired, if they adhered to their former opinion, to reconcile it with the doctrine they had pronounced on former and similar occasions : and they were directed, should they entertain the slightest doubt as to the intent and meaning of the question now propounded, to apply to the Court for a solution of such doubt. On the 8th of August the cause came on again, before the Third and Officiating Judges (S. T. Goad and W. Dorin), the Pandits having delivered an amended reply to the following effect : Under the circumstances now stated, the widow's husband's younger brother will succeed to the property which had devolved on her, and the son of his elder brother will not be entitled to any portion of it, because the property of a man which had devolved on his widow will, if, at her death he had neither daughter nor daughter's son, nor parents, go to his brother, to the exclusion of his brother's son; the right of a brother's ΒΩΥΥ being subordinate to that of 落 brother. The right of the husband’s heirs does not accrue on his death, but on the death of his widow : because the following is the prescribed order of succession to the ętate of a person leaving no t issue : First the widow succeeds, then the daughter, next the daughter's son, then the father, next the other, then the brother, then the brother's son, aóà.#a’ . The rights of these individuals accrue consecutively, and therefore as long as ofteholding the prid £ight exists, the right of the heir whose claim is posterior cannot come into operation. This is the case in the present instance with the widow, the husband’s brother, and his brother's son. Now, as it has been explained that the widow succeeded absolutely and by the ordinary law of inheritance to her husband's property, a suitable ఫ్లీ been given conformably to the doctrine contained in the Dáyabhāga, the Doyakrama Sangraha, the Υίο Ấangárnava, and other authorities current in Bengal. Authorities——JA GNYAvALKYA, Visu Nu, VarpprtA MANv, and VhryAspATI, cited in the Ddyaöhága, &e. (See. V. D. pp. 29, 81, & 85). After a perusal of the above exposition, and of the other documents connected with the case, the Third and Officiating Judges recorded their opinion that the . younger brother of the deceased Gobinda Chandra, who was alive at the tipne of the widow's death, was alone entitled to the property which had devolvo on her. They were further injøn, that the authenticity of the alleged agreement had by no meaps besproyed, anđ consequently. *Khe clainïef*he respondent, whether founded on that document or in the flow of inheritano, must on to the ground. The docreo therefore or the Court below was reversed, ot- ent was given in favour of the appellant, awarding him possession of the property in dispute with * Forefits—Rudra Chandra Choudhurí, appellant, versus Shambhu Chandra Choudhui í, 'respondent–8th engust 1821, S. D. A. H. vol. III. p. 100. ' 列 Ꭻ ?