পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৪৫১

WYAWASTHA3DARPANA 329 R. The insane person's wife has no title to inherit from her father-in-law. The widow of the original proprictor excludes her daughter-in-law; but the insane person and his wife must be provided by her with the necessaries of life out of the estate. If, however, after the death of the grandfather, a son of the insane person have been born, and subsequently die, the original proprietor's daughter-in-law will, as mother of the child, take the heritage in succession to her child, and supply food and raiment to her mother-in-law and husband. This doctrine is contained in the Dáyabhāga and other authorities. Zillah 24 Pergunnahs, 12th July, I812. Umâ Debi, versus Rfimmani Debi. Maen. H. L. Vol. II. Cha. IV. «Case II. p. 130. - Q. A person diod, leaving a son and a daughter by different wives. The son is insane and dumb, and there is no hope of his recovery. In this casc, is the daughter alone cntitled to succeed to her father's property, or does it devolve on his maternal grandfather, subject to the condition of his maintaining the son ? JR. Under the circumstances stated, in default of his widow, the daughter of the deceased is alone entitled to the succession, to the exclusion of the son. The son's maternal grandfather has no legal claim to any share of the property subject to the condition stated, but the son must be supplied with the necessaries of life by his half sister. Authorities: — MANu:—“Impotent persons and outcasts, persons born blind and deaf, madmen, ideots, the dumb, and those who have lost a sense or a limb, are excluded from a share of the horitage.” DEwALA:—“On the death of a father or other owner of property, neither an impotent man, nor person afflicted with elephantiasis, nor a madman, nor an ideot, nor one born blind, nor one degraded for sin, nor the issue of a degraded man, hypocrite or impostor, shall take any share of his heritage. For such men, except those degraded, let food and clothes be provided.” Zillah Burdwam, July 25th, 1822. Maen. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. I. Sce. III. Case III. p. 42. I. Claim by Padumani Choudhurāni for a moiety of an ancestral estate, as heir to her deceased Cases husband and his brothers, was dismissed, because it appeared that her husband died before his father and bearing on the vyavasthé brothers. She was declared entitled to maintenance only. Musst. IIemlatá Choudhurāni versus Musst. No. 154. Palumani Choudhurání. 14th February 1825 S. D. A. Rep. Vol. IV. pago 19. II. Shambhu Chandra Ghose having died without issue, leaving his step-mother Joymani and grand.nother Karunāmoyi, held that not Joyniani but Karunāmoyi was the heiress of Shambhu Chandra; that the latter inherit Shambhu Chandra's share, but the former has a right to maintenance out of it, and may follow it for the purpose of obtaining her right into the hands of Karunāmoyi, and may now, if she has just cause, require security as to her rights. Con. H. L. p. 68. III. In the case of Sib Chandra Bose against Guru Parsād Bose and others, the Court took, in my opinion, a correct view of the right which a widow, entitled to maintenance, had to security for the due receipt of it. This was a bill for partition. Shashimukhi, who was one of the three widows of Madan Mohan Bose and mother of one of his six sons, had died; another widow, Anandamoyi Dási who was mother of the other five sons, was living. The third widow, Mādhabi Dási, who had been childless, was also living. On the 7th of August, 1813, a partition was decreed and the son of Shashimukhi was declared entitled (his mother being dead) to one sixth part of Madan Mohan's estate. The other five parts were to be divided into six, of which Anandamoyi was declared entitled to one, and her five sons to one each;--but it was ordered that before any partition be made, the Master do enquire and report what would be a requisite sum for the purpose of securing to Mādhabi (the childless widow) a suitable maintenance, and it was ordered that in the first instance such sum be set apart for the purpose. • From these decisions, it clearly appears that the widow entitled to maintenance, is not to be left at Remarks. the mercy of him whose duty it is to maintain hor, but that she may compel him to do her justice, and E 4