vYAvAsthA<DARPANA 183 two sons, Gadādhar. and Kālidés. Then died Rám Shankar, leaving a daughter, Răjeshwari, and two sons of . that daughter, viz. Rādhā Nāth and Narsing. Then died Charanjit, son of Haradeb, without issue. Then died Krishna Kinkar, without issue. Nilkānta then died, leaving a daughter, Khargeshwari, which Khargeshwari, after her father's death, had a son, Prännäth. After this, in 1190, Krishna Náth died without issue. The survivors of the family at the time of the present suit, were Ajodhyá Rám, son of Káshíshwar, Galádhar, Káli Dás, sons of Rám Mohan, Gangá Mani, widow of Kevatrâm, Răjeshwari, daughter of Râmshankar, Rádhánáth and Narsing, sons of Rájeshwarí, Khargeshwarí, daughter of Nílkánta, and Pránnáth, son of Khargeshwarí. The question was, what "division was to be made of the zemindary; and the following opinion was given by Rádha Kánta Pandit : 1st, there having been four brothers living together in one family, of whom Kashishwar was the eldest, if, without there being paternal inheritance, or without the use of joint property, or without the labour or assistance of the brothers, he (Kāshíshwar) acquired ą zemindary, the other brothers would have no title to share in such zemindary. Should there have been a paternal inheritance, or an expenditure of joint funds, or should the brothers have lent their exertions, them, the zemindary being divided into five parts, Káshishwar, the acquirer, would take two, and the other brothers one each : 2nd, on the death of Kāshishwar, his five sons inherit his portion, dividing it into equal parts; on the death of Käshishwar's son Râmmohan, his two sons, Gangādhar and Kālidés, inherit their father's share, in equal portions: 3rd, the share of Káshishwar's fourth son, Kevalrām, on the demise of Kevalrám’s son Krishna Náth, should Krishna Nāth have left no daughter, falls to bis mother Rangamani : 4th, on the demise of Rám Shankar (son of Kāshíshwar) his daughter Răjeshwari inherits her father's portion, and on her death her two sons succeed her - 5th Kashishwar's son, Ajodhyārām, being alive at the decease of his brother Krishnakinkar, should the latter not have left a mother, his full brother Ajodhyārām receives his portion : 6th, on the death of Kāshíshwar's brother Haradev, his (Haradev’s) son Charanjit inherits his father's portion; and on his decease, should he have left no brother, his father's full brother, Nilkänta, the only survivor, will be entitled to that share : 7th, on the death of Käshishwar's brother Shahadev, should he (Shahadev) not have left a mother, his full brother Nilkānta will inherit his share, and on the death of Nílkánta, his daughter Khargeshwari will inherit hér father's portion. It appears to have been asserted that Nilkānta had resigned all concern in the zemindary, and that the three females, Räjeshwari, Rangamani, and Khargeshwari, received a maintenance; the two former in lieu of their shares, which they had resigned. And a further opinion, was taken on the point, which was this, “supposing that the male sharers contributed to the maintenance of Rangamani, if she (Rangamani) did not renounce her claim, she will, at a division, be entitled to the share of Krishna Náth, her son. If Rájeshwari received some lands, and renounced her claim to share, she will not be entitled to her father's share ; but if she reserved her claim, then she will be entitled to her father's share. If Nilkānta, the father of Khargeshwari, relinquished his share on condition of receiving a maintenance, Khargeshwari will receive the same.” But evidence examined as to the facts, on the supposing of which this opinion was taken, did not prove them, and there was ground to presume that the contrary was the case. The Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, determined (prescnt Sir J. Shore, F. Speke, and W. Cowper) that the decree of the Dinagepore Adawlut (from which the case came before then in appeal), and which adjudged to Ajodhyārām, (who sued for a division of the zemindary) 3 annas, 6 gandas, of the 5 annas, should be set aside, that the 5 anna zemindary, in pursuance of the Pandit's opinion, should be adjudged to the heirs of the four brothers, Kāshíshwar, Shahadev, Haradev, and Nilkānta, in the following proportions; viz., to Khargeshwari as heir to her father Nilkānta, the shares of Shahadev, Haradev, and Nílkánta, 3-5ths, and to the heirs of Kāshíshwar 2-5ths, these to be allotted to the heirs of Käsli ishwar in the following proportions, viz., to Gadá dhar and Kálidás, appellants, 1-5th, to Ajodhyárám, the respondent, 2-5ths, to Rangamani 1-5th, and the samo to Rajeshwari.“-Gadadhar Surmá and Kálidás Surmá verstts Ajodhyāranī Choudhuri. Both October 1794. S. D. A. R. Vol. I. p. 6.
- The law opinion and decision in this case are practical illustrations of a number of points of Hindu law, neither
