VYAVASTHA”-DARPANA. 44] lt will be observed that Rasmani, the mother of three, and Radha'inani, the mother of two, sons of Gokul Chandra, came in upon partition made, the first by her three sons, the second by one šÓì], and the widow of her deceased son; and also that Ramani', the widow of Sharat Chand, and Narayani, the mother of Susrat, came in as heirs, one of her husband, and the other of her son : and that the mothers and widows so taking were all declared to have the same interest in the es tates which they severally took, i. e. an absolute interest in the personal, and an estate for life in the real property.” Cons. H. L. pp. 74,75. -
- Jaymani Dást and Dást Dási r. Attá Rám Ghose and Kálá Chaoud Ghose. Case
- - bearing on the Erishnamohan Ghose died leaving two widows, viz. Karunamoyi Dagi and Lakkhyi Priyá Vyavasthās Nos. Dasi. By Karuna moyi Krisnamohan left three sons, viz. Gang6 Charan Ghose, Badan Chand 128,137,138. Ghose, and Kálá Chánd Ghose; and by Lakhyí Priyá he left Attá Rám Ghose. Ganga Charan had married two wives, first Jgya: Dasi, who died leaving a son Shambhu Chandra Ghose. The other wife of Ganga Charan is the complainant Joymani Dasi. She had a daughter, who is since deadBadan Chand Ghose left one widow, the complainant Dasi Dasi,by whom he had pne daughter only. Kala Chand the other son of Krisnamohan by Kaïunámoyí, and Attà Ram, the only son of . Krishnamohan by Lakhyi Priya', are the two defendants. • . An account and partition of the estate of Krishnamohan was in the first place ordered as between the other claimants under Krishna mohan, and (him). Atta Ram, he being declared entitled to one fourth part or share thereof as one of the four sons of Krishnamohan. Atta Ram, then, being solely entitled to a fourth separate part of the estate of Krishnamohan, it was understood and admitted, that his mother. Lakkhyi Priya was not entitled to any separate property upon
- That part of the decree which declared the rights of the mothers, proceeded, of course, ..". the partition made by their sons. Rádhámani was the mother of Doyāl Chānd and Sharat Chánd. Sharat *Chánd had died, and his widow Rámani was declared entitled to his share—and then, on a partition, between Doyál Chánd and Ramani, Radhamani, the mother of Doyál Chánd and Sharat Cha ng was entitled to a share. . . · 雕
So far this decree is consistent with all the decisions; but there is one point in which it differs from the decree that was pronounced in December, 1823, in the cause of Sri’inati Joymani Dasí and others versus Atta Ram Ghose and others, in which Karunamoyi Dasi was declared entitled, as heir to her grandson, to his share—-and also as parent, to a share upon partition; although as heir of her grandson, she had been joint owner of the property divided. In the present case, the double claim of Nasrayani Daoi may have been overlooked. Nasraoyani was mother of Ishwar Chandra and Sărat, Sūrat had died, and Narayani was declared, as his heir, to be entitled to his share. Thus then, if the decree of December, 1823, was right, Narayani was entitled to more than she received. According to the law as it was declared in the case of Joymani and others versus Attá Ra’īn and others, Narayani ought to have taken the share of Sărat,as his heir 3 and she ought then upon partition to have shared as the mother of Ishwar Chandra and Sărat, . In the case of Joymani versus Attas Ra’īn, the pandits were clearly of opinion that Karunamoyi was entitled to take as heir of her grandson, and when in that capacity she came to a partition with her son , and a son's widow, she was entitled as parent to one fourth of the estate; she and the son, and the de, ceased son's widow, each took one third; and upon partition she took one fourth of the whole. The correetmess of the opinions which the pandits gave on this occasion, seemed to have been admitted; and from sub ... soleno inquiry, I am satisfied that they were consistent with law; according to that principle Narayani * Qught to have had eight shares out of twelve. First, upon partition, shoought to have had six parts, or one half; then as mother she was entitled to one third, or four parts of the whole, her own contributing to make up the four. This would have taken two parts from Iskwar Chandra, which would have increased her own six to eight and left him four. Sir Francis Macnaghten's Considerations. pp. 78,77.
