VYA V ASTHAT IDA RIP A N A 237 7/7 issue, it being the general and inslexible rule, that succession once vested is "inde feasilie until the matural or civil death of the taker. So in this case, the future brother of the lato sister's son could slot take the property sron his mother (during her life), inasmuch as she held it in her own right, as hoir, on." not as a mere custodian or trustee for him. A ster her death of course the property, if he survive, devolv.'s upon him. II. If the sister's son had died without being the heir and suecessor of jis maternal uncle, th: sister could not claim as mother to her son, because the succession diol 11ot devolve on lini ; nor could she succeed as sister of her late brother, for the sister is no lieir” ; 11or as a bandhu for her sons who inay possibly be loorii, for the reasons who h we have already urged.t 'I'rue the sister is source or cause of existence of the imaternal grandson, but this is not it cause of i it le. were is otherwise, any woman (as already observed) who might loroduce a preserable lheir would have t it le to thsherit. As a rule, no ground or cause whatever is admitted as a title to a sister or any woman to inherit : women are expressly debarred from inheriting, by the following texts : “Wealth was ordained for the sake of defraying sacrifices ; therefore it should be allotted to persons who are concerned with religious duties, and not be assigned to women, to fools, and to people neglectful of holy obligations.”f Boudhoyant, afte" premising “a wom un is entitled,” procceds—“mot to the heritage ; sor females and persons deficient in ful organ of sense or member, are incompetent to inherit.” The construction of this passage is, a woman is not entitled to the heritage. IBut ille succession of the widow and certain other woulen takes eflect under express texts, without any contradiction to this maxim, $ to the right of the widow, the daughter, the mother, and the paternal grandmother, is an execution to the rule, and is establisled only inder special texts.H 13ut no text recognises a sister's title ; on the contrary sní knisiis a speeially · prohil,its the sister’s succession, thus: “Although the succession ought previously to devolve on the sister, as it goes to the dilughter before the daughter's son, nevertheless she is excluded from the sitecession, because she is no giver of oblations at the periodical obsequies, being disqualified by sex. IBut the daughter's right of inheritance before the daughter's son takes efleet under the spccial provision of the text : “As a son, so does the daughter of a mail proceed from his several limbs, &c.", . Au AN's A Tii also does the same, saying: “It should not be objected that, were it so, the sister and the rest, might claim the inheritance, because they couiser Joenefits by means of their sons and ot?...r descendants. Their claim is obviated by the text above cited, and by Poudhaiyama declaring women to be in general incapable of inheritance : this does not contradict the right of tisovise and the rest wirich is proporouded by special texts.” Coleb. Dig. vol. III. p. 528. It is remarkable, that the pandit who gave the last five out of the above seveu irregular and repugnant voyavasthais, has clisewhere"; well related hini self and adhered to the principles of. Ji'ai u rava u ANA and the rest as already quoted. of the ryavasthit in question, Nos. 5 and 7 were rejected by Mr. Walpole when deciding the case of Lakkhi Priyā versus 13hoirab Chandra Clioudhuri and others (supra, p. 225.) The correst mess of the decision in that case is, as it appears to me, unquestionable. The other repugnant ryavasth its have not however shared the same fate. On the contrary, most of them have been permitted to stand in the soi J. lowing decisions.
- In the case of Rúj Kumitri Kripá Moyi Debi rersus Rājā Dāmodar Chandra Deb find others it has been determined by the Sudder Colirt that, according to the Hindu law, property derive, by it nother from her son cannot be succeeded to by lucralaughter, the sister never being heir to the loro! ; or, 29th Fbruary 1S 15. S. D. A. R. vol. VII. p. 192. J'ide Ell». In. Pp. 67, GS. Maeıı. Cons. 11. I. l p. 1. 7, 10. And Macu. II. L. pp. 85, 97.
t Viz. Because no law-giver has provided for the charge of the estate of the unlorn during an indolimite period: ; because the right of succession does not remain in abeyance for an in-le'in to period, but is immediately vested in the surviving heir ti, o ist es: and because an heir not le 1 or eoneeived at the time of the late owner’s death his mo right. -
- Mitsiksharif, p. 329. Colch. I)ig. vol. I I I. p. 48 t. S (*, !,•h 10á.. b}iá. I*. 21 1. || 'l'hese are to be sound in this book, in the successions of the above heirs. * See Karun á Moy í r. Joy Chandra Glnose, S. D. A. vol. V. P. 1 1. see al-...) \'. l). lR. p. ° ! Ł.
II 3
