WYAVASTHA’DARPANA 389 208 The paternal grandfather does ಅ partake of the wealth acquired by Vyavastha his grandson, whose own father is living, but that father alone (does participate.)" For he has the chief dominion over the person who makes the acquisition. ‘Reason 209 If the acquisition was effected by the use of his funds, the paternal grandfather may take Vyavastha one share in proportion to the wealth (employed).” - - - 210 In the case of an acquisition made by the son of a daughter, should the property 9f the maternal grandfather have been employed, he shall take a share proportionate to the capital used, aud the maternal uncles and the rest shall have no shares. But if the acquisition were floade without such use of property, the maternal grandfather shall have no share.* Legal opinion admitted by the Sudder Court, and examined and approved of by Sir William Macnaghten. ..Q. A man had two sons, the eldest of whom died before his father, leaving ovo sons, to whom ho bequeathed by will certain self-acquired property. The father and three brothers of the deceased severally claimed a share of the property so bequeathed. Supposing the deceased to have acquired the property solely by his own funds and personal exertions, in this case, are all the claimaints entitledote share such acquisitions; and if so, in what proportions? On the other hand, supposing the property to have been acquired with the aid of the father's funds and labour, in this case too, how will the property be divided among the individuals in question ? What is the law as to their right of sharing the property, whether living together or separately in respect of food P R. Of the four brothers, if one (whether he lived jointly with the re-t or sopurately in respect of Property acquired by one - 影 曾 - * * ● 銀 to: •of four brothers with the aid food) bequeathed his self-acquired property to his two sons, and died before his father; in this case, if the "...iii. father's funds and lab-. property have been acquired with the aid of the the funds n personal ಮಿಲ್ಲ; * moiety such ஃேே ੰ - acquisitions belongs to the father, and the other half will be made into five parts, of which two will go to five 蠶 go to the father, the acquirer, and one to each of the three brothers: supposing the property to have been acquired without : o 蠶'ಘೀ:?" the aid of the father's funds or labour, in such case the brothers have no right to any share, but the ဖ္ရစ္ရပ္ႏို ಲ್ಯ 器 - ہ. --گ --? - 蟾》 娜 () to WO , Lllé Rattler father is entitled to a moiety. In both cases, the acquirer's sons are entitled to the portion to which taking ேே the acquirer their fathêr was entitled. This opinion is conformable to the Dāyabhāga, Diyatatra, and other authorities. * - 峻 Authorities: The text of Katyavana cited.jn the above authorities:—“A father takcs either a double share, or a moiety, of his son’s acquisition of wealth.” “Here, the father has a moiety of the goods acquired by his son at thc charge of his estate; the son who made the acquisition, has two shares; and the rest take one a piece. But, if the father's estate have not been used, he has two shares; the acquirer, as many; and the rest are excluded from participa, tion.” The Dāyabhāga, 象 * - 略 • Sudder Dowaany Adawlut. Macm. H. L. Vol. II. Case 18, pp. 163, 164. . . .م Sir William Macnaghten writes: “According to the law of Bengal, the father may make an unequal distribution of property acquired by himself exclusively, as well as of movable ancestral
- Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. p. 59.
