VYAVAST HA1DARPANA 243 On the 20th November, 1831, the pandit accordingly delivered a ryavtsthai, in the terms of that triv, on in the case of Kamalá Kánta Rāy, and to this effect : —The sister’s son, (considered as the father's daughter's son,) is an heir preferable to the paternal uncle’s son. A single son of a sister, succeeding to his maternal uncle's estate, must share the same with his after-born brothers. The sister is the source of production of daughter’s sons to the father, and the incolium of their relation. If, at the leath of her brother, Gorā Chānd, no son of Chandra Mālā existed, still, (since the right of the father's daughter's sons could not be otherwise established,) she was entitled to enter on the succession, anoi hold until production of her male issue. This too was analogous to the succession of the daughter to the “state of the father, who died leaving no male issue or widow. The sister's son, and not the sister. was entitled to the property ; for he ostered oblations (incompetent to the sister) at periodieal obsequies. This opinion was declared to be in conformity to the Dayabhaiga, and other works current in 13emgal, and supiorted by five cited proofs. 1. Passage in the Daiyabhūga, declaratory of the right of the father's daughter’s son, ( cite Colebrooke's translation, Ch. XI. Sec. 6, para. 8, page 214). 2. Gloss of shiís nusits A thereon (eide note to imitem.) 3. Text of JA GNYAvALKYA, cited in the Diyabhaiga, in the chapter which treats on the participation of sons born after partition. This provides for their shares, from the apparent estate, (vide Coleb. Dá. bhá. Ch. VII. para. 12). 1. Part of the recapitulation of Siri Raisirs A, whici. declares the right of the father's daughter's son, next after the grandson of the brother, (ride Colebrooke's translation of Dóyubh*ga, note at the fuot of Ch. XI. Sec. 6). 5. Thc text of JA^Gs xxv x i.kxx as to t hu* • »riler of heirs, eited in D«i3yaòhciga, ('h. XI. Sec. 1, p. 4. On the 5th Devonber, 1831. Mr. Turnbull, with reference to the above exposition, confirmed the * »::igin:il judgnneut by hinn past.— Karun á May í and ollners versus Jay C'handra Ghose. Case No. 15, 15th July 1 S30. S. I.). A. It. Vol. V. pp. 42—46. In thc case of Mlusst. Sulakklaná rersus IRám Dulál Pánde, the pandits of the Sudder IDewanny \lawlut have given a ryavasthai to the following effect. “The zemindaree in dispute, formerly held by îRájáh Jadu Ráın and his son Cunwar Nárâyan, and by the som of the latter, Joy Náráyaıı. and after Joy Nārāyan's death by Sugandhá, his step-mother, (the second wife of Comnwar Nārāyan.) legally ol. - ‘. . .lves, after the death of Sugandhā, to Shānā Prasād, A1nanda Lá l, Nanila Lá1, and Lakkhí Nárávai i, sons of the daughters of Jadu Itáin, who were then alive, and to Gangá Nārāyan and Madhu Súilan, two other sons of the daughters of Jadu Ráin, who are since born, and the whole six lic-irs | “ins: now alive, in equal portions.” The pantlits being further questioned, whether supposing one or in ore sons to be hereafter born to II ari Priyā, the surviving daughter of Jadu Rām, they would be • 11titled to any share of the inheritance P and it was declared in answer; that they would lie entitled ti share with the other daughters’ sons of Jadu IRáin, who are now living. The decrees of the Zillah and Provincial Courts, as sar as they rejected the adoption and title of Sundra Nārāyan, were affirmed. 13ut as there appeared to be now six laughters’ sons of Jadu lūānviz. Ráın Prasád, Ananda Lál, Nanda Lál, Lakkhí Nárávan, Madhu Súdan, and Gangá Náráyan, (the two last born of liis daughter Hari I’riyá since Sugundhá's death), and according to the exposition of the II indu law, delivered by the pandits, those six were entitled to slare the zenindar. . . equally with reservation of the eventual birth of other sons to Hari l’riyā, who would be entitled to share with the other viaughters' sons; the zemindaree was adjudged, with this reservation, to the six daughters' sons of Jadu l-ām above specified, as being the heirs at law to Joy Nārāyan, who held th: state before Sugandhá, with an account of mesne profits.* Musst. Sulukkhaná r. Rä" "ä! i’inde and others, 27th May 1S 1 1. S. i.). A. lt. vol. I. 1 p. 321–3:30. y y PI
- This decision recognises the succession of the grandfather's daughter's son. It is loot **
lo cause the 1 yarasthaí upon which it is based is repugnant to the established principles above ιιιιοι d a...! because the origin or cause of title of the father’s daughter's son and that of any other reliot ' : # : * • >:Ꮣ ☽]Yt * . י אל" - Holyro- -P:3:3. J. :3
