VYAVASTHA?.pARPANA - 149 inherited by her married sister, who has, or who is likely to have, a son, that it was his opinion that if the maiden daughter (vested with the succession, and afterwards married) die leaving a son, that son alonę succeeds.” But Ji'Mustavashana and the rest seem to be of opinion that, whether the maiden daughter vested with the succession, and afterwards married, die leaving or without leaving a son, in either case her sister who has or is capable of having a. son, is entitled to suceed. For had it been the case that, on the death of the said daughter, her surviving son was alone entitled to inherit, these authors would certainly have laid it down as a particular rule. In truth, the opinion of Sar Knish NA is not so consistent with justice and reason, as in that case, during the existence of the daughter who has, or is capable of having, a son, the daughter's son, whose title is inferior to that of the daughter, shall succeed before her without a positive text declaratory of his title ; and the other daughter's sons, who equally confer benefit on their grandfather by presenting the oblation-cake, shall without a just cause, be excluded. Stro Kursus.A Tuttوده كجك تهدمت مع by laying down in his commentary on the Dāyabhāga, that “if qhere be no widow, the 驚 inherits; in the first place, a maiden daughter ; or on failurc of such, an affianced daughter: but of there be none, a married daughter:” has made a distinction in respect of succession between the daughter who is not, and the daugh.er who is betrothed. Although this doctrine is not advanced by any other authority, and the author of Dăyabhaiga expressly impugns it as untenable, yet it docs not appear to be inconsistent with reason—for when with reference to a text of Gou ra M A, such distinction is made in the succession of Stridhana, then according to the maxim—“An exposition of law, given in one instance, may, if not objected to (by a text) be considered applicable in cvery instance,”—it cannot be regarded as untenable.} - 48. If there be no maiden daughter, then the daughter who has, and the daughter who is likly to have, a son, equally succeedf. This is in conformity with the above text of PanA sana and the following text of Vrihaspati : “Being of equal class (n) and married to a man of like tribe, and being virtuous and devoted to obedience, she (namely the daughter) whether krité or akritá (p), shall take the property of her father who leaves no son. - :י - - : (n) “Qf equal class”—that is, belonging to the same tribe with her father. “Asarried to a man of like tribe"—This is intended to exclude one married to a man of superior or inferior tribe. For the offspring of a daughter married to a man of a higher or lower class is forbidden to perforin the obsequies of his maternal gandfather and other ancestors who are of inferior or of superior rank. But one, married to a man belonging the same class, confers benefits on Jer father by meams of her son. (Coleb. Dá. bhá. p. 186). • r • .
- Sir William Macnaghten, (See his H. L. Vol.I. p. 24), Mr. Elberling, and a few Pandits have however followed the above opinion of Sar Karsmna Tanzao AskAoA. - -
+ Although Sir Willam Macnaghten in his Hindu law, (vol.I. p. 21) disapproves of the above distinction by saying, “this doctrine is not concurred in by any other authority,” yet since, in the 2nd Volume of the same work (p. 40) he has quoted, among the approved legal opinions, a vyavasthis delivered by the court Pandits in conformity with the above distinction, without making any remark as to the impropriety thereof, he must be considered to have afterwards acquiesced in it. - - $ Da". Kra. Sang. p. 8, Coleb. Da'. bha'. Ch. XI. Sect. 2, para... s. p. 186. W. Da%. Kra. Sang. p. 7 & 8.-Coleb. Dig. vol. III. pp. 490, 49e.-Da”. T. p. 88.--Macn, H. L. vol. I. p. z1. - . "۰ - 1 Vyawastha^ Authority.
