vyAVASTHA-DARPANA. 457 shares on partition of their respective husbands' estates, then it is inconsistent with reason that , she should be deprived of a share on partition of her husband's estates on the contrary, according to the general maxim “the sense of the law ascertained in one instance, is applicable in others also, provided there be no impediment, it is proper that she have a share on partition of her husband's estate.” It is however to be observed that her claim to a share drises only when her husband's property is divided by her great-grandsons or these and other descendants, and not when any other ancestor's estate is partitioned by them. “Mothers are equal sharers with them (i. e. the sons;) and daughters are entitled to a fourth part”—VBruAspati. “For the unmarried daughter a quarter is allowed; and three parts belong to the son. But the right of the owner (to exercise discretion) is admitted when the property is small.”—Katyavana. “To the maiden sisters let their brothers give-portions out of their own allotments rospectively; let each give a fourth part of his own distinct share; and they who re filse to give it, shall be degraded.”†–MANU . According to these texts sons are entitled to three quarters, and the unmarried daughters (on partition made by their brothers) to one quarter or to a deduction of one fourth out of their each brother's share. But the authorities prevalent in Bengal do however conclude that that right entitles the maiden daughters only to sums enough for their marriage. Thus Ji Mustav A. ių. As A alluding to the above text of Manu declares: “From the mention of giving, and denunci ation of the penalty of degradation if they refuse, it appears, that portions are not taken by daughters as having a title to the succession. For one brother does not give a portion out of his own allotment to another brother who has a right of inheritance. Thus JAGNYavalkya, saying, “Uninitiated brothers should be initiated by those" for whom the ceremonies have
- Unaware of the above maxim, and nicety, Sir Francis Macnaghten has, it seems, made the follow
inforemark:—“If the widows, sons, and grandsons shall all have died without having came to a partition, and othen the great-grandsons shall divide the estate among them ; their great-grandmother will not be entitled to any share of the estate so partitioned by her great-grandsons; although she would have been entitled to her proportion if her sons, or her grandsons, had divided, or if a son or grandson had been dividing with more remote descendants. Her great-grandsons are morally bound tomaintain her;---and from what has occurred in the Supreme Court, I venture to say, that there, a performance of this moral obligation, may be legally enforced. Cons. H. L. pp. 51, 52. - + Accorong to J KMu?Aviouana the last text applies to the case where the funds may be small, for he expressly says: “if the funds be small, sons- must give a fourth part to daughters, deduoting it out of their owa respective shares." Pá, bká. p. 66. The unmarried sister should have a suun sufficient LPfar hea ոաբtial ↑ *Ꮼhrömoney.
