against his grand-son, who are in possession. According to the Moohummudan Law, is the claimant entitled to a fourth part of her parents' property or to any proportion less than a fourth? and supposing her to have the right, is it fit that, she being married, the action should be brought in her name, or in that of her husband?

with a widow

distribution.

R. The original division of the estate between the of a brother two brothers was correct and proper. Now that dis- and four putes have arisen regarding the succession, the property daughters, the widow dying of the deceased brother must be parcelled out in legal before the portions among the heirs, and for this purpose must be made into ninety-six shares, of which seventy-six will be allowed to the four daughters and twenty to the brother, and the share of each daughter, whether married or unmarried, will be nineteen. Consequently the claimant is entitled to nineteen out of ninety-six shares. It is a matter of no consequence whether the present possessors obtained the property by fair or by foul means; as the law recognizes no proprietary right for which some title cannot be shewn, such as acquisition by gift or the like, which does not here appear to have existed and such possession cannot bar the claimant's right. The husband of the claimant cannot Suit by a marunder any pretence interfere in urging the claim preferred by her to her parents' property, the proprietary right to which is solely vested in herself.*

This is a case of vested inheritance. The division of the deceased brother's estate originally should have been by 24, according to Prin: Inh: 66, but as the widow died before distribution, the number of shares to which she died entitled should be compared with the number of her heirs. Her shares amounted to 3 and her heirs' to 4, but these being compared give a Mootubayun or prime result, in which case the rule is (see Prin: Vest: Inh; 98) that the number of shares into which the property should first have been distributed be multiplied by the number of the heirs of the deceased. Thus: 24 X 4-96, of which number the daughters succeed to 64 or two-thirds, in virtue of their own right of inheritance, and to 12 or one-eighth, in right of succession to their mother.

ried woman.

of four sons with two

two widows.

step-sons.

CASE LXXXV.

Q. A person dies, leaving two wives, four sons and two daughters; but the distribution of his estate did not take effect until after the death of his two wives and one of his daughters. By his first wife he had only one son, and by his second wife he had one son and two daughters-his other two sons were the offspring of another woman. The death of the first wife occurred before that of the second, and the death of the second before that of the daughter, who left a husband. Under these circumstances, into how many shares is the estate to be made, and to what proportions of it will the claimants be entitled respectively?

R. In the first place the property of the deceased is daughters and to be made into eighty shares, of which one-eighth or ten shares will go to the widows, and they will take five each. The male issue will take a share double that of the female. Thus the sons will get fourteen shares each and the daughters seven each. On the death of the first widow her only son will be the sole heir to her Of a son with property. The half-brethren by the same father only, are excluded from participation. On the death of the second widow her five shares (being multiplied by the number of shares into which they must be distributed) will be increased to twenty, of which her son will take ten and her daughters five each, and the shares of the preceding results will be multiplied by four, the number of sharers of the present class. Thus the share of the son on the death of the first widow: 5x4-20, and so with the shares of the sons and daughters on the death of the father: 14x4-56 (son's share); 7x4-28 (daughter's Of a husband share), and the total number of shares 80X4-320. On the with a brother death of the daughter her property, which consists of

and sister.

thirty-three shares, will be made into one hundred and ninety-eight, of which her husband will be entitled to one

A

half or ninety-nine, and the other half will go to her whole-brother and her whole-sister in the proportion of a double share to the male. Thus the former will receive sixty-six and the latter thirty-three shares. The halfbrothers will be excluded from the participation. The of two wives, preceding results must again be multiplied by six, the a son by the first, a son and number of shares of the present class. Thus: 10×6-60, two daughters and 5×6=30, and 20×6=120, and 56×6=336, and 28×6= and two sons by the second 168, and 28×6=168, and 320×6=1920, and of this the by another marriage; the son by the first wife will receive 336 +120=456, the son two wives and by the second wife 336+60+66-462, the daughter by daughters dythe second wife 168+30+33=231. The two other ing successively, the surviving brothers will be entitled to three hundred latter leaving and thirty-six shares each, and the husband will take a husband. ninety-nine, as above stated.*

1

Among the first class of sharers an example is exhibited of the Fifth Principle of Distribution. The share of the two widows is oneeighth by law, consequently the property must be made into eight shares at least and eight must be assumed as the root of the case; but besides them there are ten other claimants (one son always counting for two daughters.) Here it will be observed that there remains a fractional division in the allotments of both the wives and the children, for one share cannot be given to the two wives without a fraction, and after their share is taken away the remaining seven cannot be distributed among the other ten claimants without a fraction. In this case, (after finding the proportion between the wives and their shares and the children and their shares (both of which prove to be Mootubayun or prime), it is requisite to find the proportion between the numbers of the sharers respectively, which proves to be Mootudakhil or concordant, in other words the smaller number exactly measures the greater. Thus: 2X5=10 when the rule is (see Fifth Prin: of Dist: 79) that the greater number be multiplied into the root of the case. Thus: 8 X 10-80. On the death of the first wife, her son being her only heir, no division takes place. On the death of the second wife (to conform to the rule that a male shall have a portion double that of a female) her property must be made into four shares, but being a case of vested inheritance, the proportion must be ascertained between the number of shares to which she was entitled at the first distribution and the number into which her property is made on her decease. These two numbers, 4 and 5, are prime or are divisible by an unit only, no third number measuring them both; in which case the rule is (See Prin: Vest: Inh: 98) that the shares (aggregate and individual of the preceding result) be multiplied by the aggregate of the shares into which the property of the last deceased is made. Thus: 80X4=320, and 5×4=20, and 14 ×4=56, and 7×4=28, and the individual shares of the present class be multiplied by the number of shares to which the deceased was entitled at the former distribution. Thus: 25=10, and 1×5=5. At the third division, on the death

one of the

CASE LXXXVI.

Q. 1. A person dies, leaving as his heirs, a widow, a son and two daughters. Subsequently one of the daughters died, leaving no children, and next the widow of the proprietor died. The son of the proprietor then died, leaving a widow and a son, lastly his grand-son died. Under these circumstances, how, according to the Moohummudan Law, will the survivors (the daughter and the widow of the son of the original proprietor) share his property; no distribution having taken place during the life-time of the deceased persons above-enumerated?

Of a widow, R. 1. There are only surviving a daughter of the two daughters

and a son; original proprietor and a widow of his son; the prodaughters, the perty will in this case be made into three shares, of

one of the

widow, the

son (leaving a widow and a son), and lastly the grand-son successively dying.

which the widow of the son will take two and the daughter the remaining one: because, when the original proprietor died, he left a widow, a son and two daughters as his heirs. The widow's share was oneeighth of his property and the remainder belonged to his son and daughters, in the proportion of two shares for the male and one for the female; in other words, the son had a right to one-half and the daughters to the other half or a quarter each. On the death of one of the daughters, who left no issue, her share was to be made into three parts, of which two appertained to her brother, and the remaining one to her sister; and, after the death of the widow of the original proprietor, her

of the daughter, to conform to the rules that a husband shall have a moiety where there are no children, and that a male shall have double the portion of a female, her property must be made into six shares at least, but, being a case of vested inheritance, the same process must be observed as in the last case. The result of the comparison of the numbers will be the same, for 33 and 6 are prime. Thus : 6X 5-33-3 and 3-5-2 and 2-3-1. On multiplication according to the preceding rule the sum will be found to be 1920. Thus the preceding result 3200=1920.

legal share was to have been made into three parts, of which her son would take two and the surviving daughter one; and of the share of the son of the original proprietor, which he should have inherited from his sister and mother, one-eighth will at his death go to his widow and the remainder to his son. On the death of his son, who was grand-son of the original proprietor, his whole property will be vested in his mother, because she is entitled to one-third as her legal share, and to the remaining two as the return. Under this distribution, twothirds of the property of the original proprietor will devolve on the widow of his son and the remaining one on his daughter.* It is laid down in the Sirajyya,

* In this case of Vested Inheritance, the result must be arrived at by the following calculation :

At the First Distribution the property should have been made into thirty-two parts, (the heirs being a widow, a son and two daughters, and the number eight not being divisible among the claimants without a fraction) agreeably to the Third Principle of Distribution (77); of which parts the widow should have got 4, the son 14, and the daughters 7 each. At the Second Distribution, on the death of one of the daughters, the heirs being her mother, brother and sister, her property should have been made, agreeably to the Third Principle of Distribution, into eighteen parts, (the number six, into which it was necessary to make the estate, to give the mother her sixth, not being divisible among the claimants without a fraction) of which the mother was entitled to three, the brother to ten, and the sister to five; but this being a case of Vested Inheritance, it becomes necessary to compare the number of shares which the daughter had at her death with the number of shares into which her estate should be made. Thus: 7X2=18-4, and 4=7-3, and 3-4-1, which giving a Mootubayun or prime result, the rule is (see Prin: Vest: Inh: 98,) that the aggregate and individual shares of the First Distribution must be multiplied by the aggregate of the shares of the Second Distribution. Thus: 32X 18-576, and 4X 18-72, and 14X18=252, and 7×18=126, and the individual shares of the second class must be multiplied by the amount to which the daughter was entitled at the preceding distribution. Thus: 3×7=21, and 10 × 7=70, and 5X7=35.

At the Third Distribution, on the death of the mother, her property should have been made, agreeably to the First Principle of Distribution, into three parts, of which her son was entitled to two and her surviving daughter to one-but, being a case of Vested Inheritance, it becomes necessary to compare the number of shares which the mother had at her death with the number of shares into which her estate should be made.' Her shares, according to the preceding results, amounted to 93-on the First Distribution 72, and on the Second 21, and the estate now should be made into three. Thus: 331-93, which gives a Mootudakhil or concordant result, showing that the numbers agree in 3, in which case the rule is (see Prin: Vest: Inh: 99,) that the aggregate and individual shares of the first distribution be multiplied by a third of the aggregate