University of Virginia Libra TL | I) 7Ue Sel - ti DX On | e law of inheritance to chiese Cr cieneted a. = et ERMAN LIBRARY Y OF VIRGINIA VILLE, VIRGINIAtu Soshacy ttt see 4] if ; eeea begs’ Tekan} Slept a 3 =. PREFACE. , | ew. 2 * e 5 @ ® A treutise on tha sw of Tan batcs to Sil ch eh Eisbips~ 2 asin force p&vious (othe annekA tipn rep the Panjab, “PQs sess@s little aba: than 2 e & or the grows of the Sikh power, Trans and GieSatle, ie lh a know ledge of ghe lawyand 1 customs watch, even’ i in the®. oy s of the gored ttest anatch¥ agd miolene ce, were ackgowledged general y the the chiefs, “aatd Wigch, in the Majogity of d&ses, svere observe by ifiem® A ee and uninterrupted eeace, the déclared wigh of Govelan ment tht the chitfships ° \ | shewlel be popeuated, ang th® protection and’ ses u rity le gll enjoy. under Britigh rule, has hot been “without its effect pon the Sikhs, y ho. leay 2 hMandonet™ Sammi di Get ‘winy of etieyr_peculiay c cugtoms, ae eve a0 a #& mor®.unifosm sy8tem ef “law. Bat ¢t will not tebe the lesg interesting, to the histaxical student, me) foserm' line the cusioma gee ved by the fotunders of the Sikh power, which, even thy ugh theye may hae > “a lost muth of tegiz original force and signiftance, neverjgr@tess posses s aft : | historical’ walue. g Busit i is di&cult to negated #ne histor > 5 a a influence which will e a fer many "years tocome, - * ; a The authorities for what igo ssue@n advanced in this treatise aree the faery records of the ehiefs toncerne®, and the statemperfts of their eonfi- lengiale agents, the political retords of the: Dghli Residency and the Ambala Agency from the g@ar 1808'; and “disputed ¢ cases ‘décjded y many bolitical officers, including Str David Cehterloey, Sir ,Charfes fleleadig.. © Japtatn Bitch, Captain ana, Sr George Clerk, Captain Ross? Captain Wade»Sir Henry dlaSrence, an Majer ce O50 es @ @ ® @ e @¥ rmThH 2° a IN LS EG A 8 se f . ® ° > —ay es 4° : 3 } ; j ® " She ® wi. au » 8 > a @.®” : s d ° D> %, » A. ‘ > * ® e ADOPT2QN ». : 2 eee og : ‘gos Cc ¢ : 2 : midows cannot aioe a 50. ,e- e D right & adobtiog granted,®p. 108 a foe . sree . me es , o. » _ANLUWAIA 1 “(KAPUR : ; vid TR” A we AS #8 @GRAPURTHALLA”” % % oe AMBALA >, 3 ” » e.2 , Sa 2 ci ® d a> ; &)» ae cersion of widows, p. 39, »» a : = mk, ) adoption, p, 50, : > @) 2 s td i ) , aw » ® 2 > : a a bee 44 ATTARI . . —- » aoa partit LP » B® » *» “y é ; > he iL i al bltlGir-. Se mabe d > ar ° > a . oe peek fe 2 e : : s > 3 ° Py . o ; > » ® ) » » : : : ) > » » . : o? . E oe 3 > > iB. > Dp > > >» pADRUKA x ? . =e A D 8. as » : primogeniture, p. 11. : : > es — : =. PA AA De » > prec edents ®enying primogenit ureep. 14 ee ? ee the Jhind Ss] uecess mon cas@® E ® t A D ® pp. 80—90. > 2. | . i e ° ae i BAIDWAN er ° oT illegiti 57 pie » ree ot 5 g1 macy, pp. 57 @~59 s ® =. as ? Do, > will of*Ranjit 5 Sitch, *p, oe og Z . 5 ; a ,.£ Fa 5 ° ; % x & . BALOHAPPAR . : ae: » > >. succession of widows. ab 41 ° vies ‘es » > ‘ » e 7 BAZIDPUR et ‘3 ‘ ihe ht ce p. on ® \ - ° oe = o > " i Jhind succession case, Pp. 80—90 : 6 . . be eO ibd Se ee Mpeg . , ox BHADO UR - > 9 » . » 2 : = 2 e _ > re a ® : e s » ® Ee cede®ts east primogergtui% p. 43 a » Cc addans ala® Pp: 29 ie sah ed ‘ au. Bom, 9 ® » . : ° > > . 5 Dp > = : BHANGi > AR Fe *\ ae Eieielcision-amone <6 te Sree soe ae mf SION among SONS, 9). if : s : 9° ; > ae BHAIBAND - =F Loe : ee divisio} : : oneay —ae Phe a 3 : among sons, p.220 =) » ° : hy ta D a ° : sy > ; ® >» 2p? » seo 5 ’ 3 y . >« Poe € ©) f < «< & « c e \ ( ¢ po. toc ™ « ‘BHAIKIAN FAMILY OF KYTHAL. o, primogenitg re, p90. _\nreeedents e!.dwing pce was not the rul e, p. 14. chaldardgina not practised, pt. 18, 28. deny rigks pf widow to herit, pp. 28, og ot ‘ c ae \ she bometimes dy Johec it, p. 30. e ( “| ~ the Kakrala, case, pp. 30--35, 47. < cer ) f : : will of Réni Bhégbari,\y . 2 © .° : e DHANDURA |” re re > a = succe: *sion of widgws, p. 41, <2 - 8 : <3 6 = : ® 2 . e ® > ; DIALGHAR ’ ° 9 . ee ie + 2 — sudcession 0? widows, p. 89. ° ae ° a ohe widow inheriting from another, p. 4. : rp +-reversior toybrothgrs % p. 52 Fe 8s ne ne ae e ‘ .=* » P e * DISINHERIRANCE . > se , vay Ne its legal effect, p. 85. 2% ox es , =, ” > ; > ®~e ; . 3 i ) F = > » o? ® ‘ » 2. fi 9 , oe js » > gee >> » E., : : . rcs 2 ‘ = es " ° : ® (e 2 ~ ESCHER, ATS » » ’ >, ; : the right of Governtnent i reaclios¥s. pp. 76, 78. ‘ eee 3 1s vide“ COLLATERAL.” as : oe | Jee > 4 » ° ? x, ® a » oa Ca « ® 2 5 FF. ¥ > , : . > 9. ® » : ©. FARIDKOT 7, : ’ ee ; . right of adoption ‘granted, ° 108, ° ° Lg a | oa FEMALES b 7) . . @ es exclusion of, pp. 101-103. He : Ea bo vide * WIDOWS,” “DAUGHTERS.” ? 2 FIROAPUR og ee succession of widdws? p p. 42. ? " ‘, | adoption, p. 50. °° : See “ee . ° 2 > Pescheat, Pp: 93--S&. . Z 2 ee \ ag . : * . : 9 ° nae es ® - 9 > * a ee > a ; ® o> ( : 9 » : ? G. , ‘ > o 3” GANOWLI ie e 9 r > > =~ » ® 2 os 5 » , one widéw succeeding anothey, yn 4& . ~, , fe Fo, . Dp : 6 ° » . — ) : é 9 p ® a 2 8 s > 3 3 a 2 = 8 > me 9 , 9, Ht: f » gOe 527 ze : 4 . 9 HINDU LAW 2 Se .* * differs nfuch from Sikh }Se Puryear a eee &) c ILLEGITIM Aux ue s = SA ALA ALRGAAANY 8 G é @F ate 2 SH < ars Claim 5 x ae ’ its rule regarding escheats ?P. 76, , > LASHKAR WHAN>? 9° ) ; RZ 9 chaddardalna, p. 25. 9-3” °° ee ) > - i LUNDHI’ 123 ‘ » %, ) Ses +5 : a ) chadcardalna) p. 24. ? eS =~ . wv > » y ' 2 y Mat, SADA KOUR°KANHEYA, pp. 36, 37,39. °? ? : , Meo oe A ee ge oo ae one of the Phulkian hovses, p. p. , ) > \ Dependents denying primogeniture, p. 13. S MALWA SIKUS, vide SIKHS;? °° 3 is me 8s /MANSHA SIKHS, pile “OPENS.” Pos “MANI MAJR& f 2a” ae Dee a to inherit Kakrala, p. 33. : 9 | oa , MOTHER es a Roe > » > gl» cannot inherit, 35. 83, ) G5 ee : So ) , 9D ? get a i MUSTAPHABAD : , if. » >, Jehaddardél Ina, p. 24. * or ’ succession of widows, Pp 43. ." ee : a a aes oe Oo % o aN, 2 i ) : > ABTA A 3 3 @ x primogeniture, pn. 10, J chaddardilna, p. 23. po c ae right of adoption giputed; p IOS25 ee ‘3 = ) -~ ; partition ** | : equal pastitiow among soas the general rule,” PP. 16, 70. 2 : * the eldest epngrecei sing a ratler larger Shai@™ 13. 4 ‘ . > ppeedents Cis and Trans- cee PP» DoT! ‘68, 73 - ; PA PIAA a Pos 3 y Ss primdgeniture, pp. * 6, 12, 6. : » Se Raja Sahib Singh | I the claim of his son Ajst Sirgh, p. 62) ) chaddardalna, p. 23. ee ek ; aS right of adoption granted, D. 107, > oO heePATTIDARI SHARES ° , yorders of gxcrnment, pp. 101—106. ‘ ‘ < ( < ¢ « i « < PHULKIAN. HOUSE. Hgap or me Macwa Simug,p.3 | 8 f ‘ ; 0 t ' PRIMOGENITURE.«& ° C ee ‘ only observed by the fsu~ Phullian families, pp.,10, 2. * gt = __ < the conflicting opinjonsof thchiefsep. Ml. * : 5 C - the cldm af Ajit Singh, Pattidla, p. lle * § ae < that of Rartab Singh, Pattidla,p, 62. « .<- | 3 ofddéts of Government wegarding Jhind, pp. 65, 100. ‘ éatroduced by Panjgb Goyernment 25. Sees ‘ G6 c ~ ; ee & ¢ .RUDHOUR « \ 3 <\ succession of widows, p. 42. Or : ; at eee “ adopt:Sa, p. 53. ; eo ‘ © illegitimacy, pp. 55—57. : . ‘ wilt of Rani Ind Kour, p. 74. «' oe -§ -« ee : Paar Z > E : ee | RUPAR , oo re To ve ge ae chaddardélna, p:24. | ‘ , ; succession of daughter's som, P. 52: ¢ ¢ a € S{legitixaacy, p. 90. ( se eee : i va e 6 c6 ; a : % . es oct q « £ « é : ¢ ‘ r ” Sy S g < ae @ os SELEMPUR” ae ‘ e : A succession of widows, p. 41... sg ° = : e x - on =< : € ; a ‘ ‘ SENIORITY Op WIDOWS, pede eee pie ee ‘ : ‘« f : ¢ : * . - ( e - SIKHS, Buawitay, p. 26. cam ) Le i > : ce ) 5 yo ) > SIKHS, Kuarnr, p. 27, 9? 0 . oe SIKHS OF TH" MALWA. ; p. aa | ep eit ee their ¢ origin, D. Be 9 / go> m ) ) Ss become. independen } of Dehli, p. 4.7 > “ a ees s the rise of the great houses, pp. 5, 73. y =P s = they seek British protection, pp. 6, 76. Cae . 2 they relations. to tae British Government;p Chess 28 . : tne chinge, of eclasione i 1845, 9. ee oe ‘dy ; 2 > ) SIKH OF THE MANTHA ce . a he a their origin, p. 8. ee! an o their subjection by Ranjit Sirgh, i J. 2 y a é } vip oO , ae SIKH CHIEFSHIPS, ghowra or; p. I. 3 . . SINDHANWALIA = ” *° 42% : ee ae ass equal partitica among sens, pr 17. | % a Bee = right of adoption granted, p. 108. ree. Be ee > SINGHPURIAH oe ee, *, ,deny right of widow to inherit, p. 28. De ees a 2 oe chaddardalpgy p. 28. ae ; , “5 SONG 7 : J ’ vheir marriage, p. 31, ic | es ie ; their succession, vide “ PRIMOGENITURE wand “ PARTITION== = ° | >, .» division by Vundatentd and bhaiband, p: 22; Sets 2 ye, a ae 0 > : 5 a SCUNTI - ; ‘ illegitimacy, p. 60.9 K ; e 55 ’ © 8 > 3 » : 9 s @ ‘ , , ie % 0 2 »> , , , a > 8 oOo ) Jj om Ty a ° > ie : J 2 ° 2 2 9 ee > TEJ SINGH, RAG*s’ p. 26. eee e OL ee a right of adopti on granted, ,p. 108. ’ . : f THANESAR, *® ° F ee ee <2 » dipésion smong sons, p. Lip ; = on ages addardalna, p. 23. , : oe ; - 5 Je > : dueceda of widowg, pp. 40,941. - ” a os their joint sieccesiad , p» 46. eo 5 ‘ 5 > ) illegitimacy, p. 50. ve ica 2 8 ,o Si collateral succession, p. 90. ee en Moe hs > ~— > =, B} »@ Z a 2 wp- RIDCYS ( : the ie of the widow to Succeed Lcknowledgad, p. 18. EhecustSm of ekadddi ‘dalna,: vide “ CHADDARDA LNA,” p.49. precedents showingsthat the widow hfs inhe&zieq p. 37—42, her ee consfantl ly zefused, pp. 36,43. ‘ c eGents showin® “that if as been refused, pp. 43 83,4 oe of Governfnent reg Scinfie lgws, pp. ‘10 1, ‘102, Cos ‘ ‘thet seniority, p. 20. € < Widows, of husband dyingsin he lifetime of his father have no right, pp. 35, 36, 83. * joint succession of widows, p. 44 C é : one widow has n€&claifh*to succedd anot ouher, p. 44. ; Segaligy of re- -marriag& p. 9. - ee ‘ A « has no pow€r to gransferaproperty Wy Will, pp. 61, 73. pensions of wSdows, gp. 166, 107. « ‘ e €e “WILLS their. ratidtty, p. 6%e oor oe importi#nat will cases, ,ss peeiee ) b/d y y ; 29 yD ~» ; ) - ) . ‘ ) ) Hi 8 F > ° - , 4 o z D > » v ° ; ® a) ‘ > ny ) } ) = 3 @ ) 4 " ® 4 > ey o > re > ~ ? PEE LAW, O# INHERIT ANGE : ¥ % % a - @ e >» ® ‘ 5 d ; ®, Fes OP ‘CHIEFS SHIPS * ene ® > ‘° ® fs » % ® w* . @ a > g ® 3 » . * -* AS OBSERVED: BY JHE SIKHS , Be ® e Q ® > ‘ q ° 5 ae ? ® > > eae e 2 a eg Ba PREVIOUS [TQ sHE,ANNEXATION OF ;THE.PANJAB.> > é ® 2? ? : » ‘ , a ager ’ ° s > OD 2 <> Bp ; > —_ 9, eee - _ : 2 . av o7e 2 wit® > a a ® = > . 7 per =e : ys © Q ‘ a p; an yoann ha? ¢ 1 OV LE Oe ANA > ’ ght: 1¢: necessary , to cogsider the?’ origin 9 of the Sikh Cheafships must be” and des of the Sikh’ Chiefships, béfore nares eae i laws can be. under- ti the rulbs. of succession, ’which dbtatn amongst stood. Cee ae ' them, can. «he accurately deternfinéed, for these . ° f havg erown: ae snedually au without abroptntss, ’ oe and have been modified, "AS much by a remem. =e 8 “Driince of the Figur Code, by, which the ‘Sikhs ; 2 were hound before theyy adopted the reformed faith, , as by the exercise 2 almost. uneqntrollesl power, *4 ° a 3 lich. iva time of licensewand cpnfusion» mao : v - “a the will ofthesspzon gest often phe. QAly daw: fos 0 9 ee € ® » ® ® : : $ Pm itn. laura The difficulty of ° : 2, To» *declafe, autforitativel y,” the » laws finde em | _p law is very considers ? “hatprevailed among the Sich, is.a matter ofg%. "2 ; ’ : > preat tiMicultyy, and one auliteh ae often been, -.*: o ’ ¥ . » . y pronounced impossible. ’ Principles gre Littl Ges? aS ’iO: - SN @ @& Ie : C -_ ® C~ Gos a c Coe s Cc ~ ~« Cc Cc c ¢€ Ta Cc c c =< : ec 2 a < E « e € ¢ = & © ae c € € e oe The two main fivi- © Sious of the Sikhs: ento “those -sf the Ménjh&and Malwa. e ee Ss c é € e e <€ cS € © € o2 <= a “ € c @ ~ c te — : CG. c Cc nese C C c “ € é Cc ce ¢ GRE (* Se by various disturbing iniluences, were acknowledged guides ; whilst ghere ismo family ‘of ality” importance whichis “has note wee itS interest é whicd particular familics, of the whole ‘body ‘of’ * with tolerable “certainty, dhe yeasons «vhick led té . their-disregarg ore denial, uider exgeptional cir- e € e q © : e ON < e a HAW OF ENHERITANCE garded by then ; ; prescription andcustom, modified the only hasseémef*to “IEE "ie tt, ‘denied ‘bs ovatted the ryles which at has ordinarily Beon conterit to follow. « Yet, iti 1g poke by a cafeful consifleration of the eprecedénts#which, Sikli hystorya 441g nishés 1 in , nal settlers’ and not meré invaders or imnfigrants 3+ » from the Mamjha, are town aS ohio Malwa. , Silthe. oe Pree Their adknowlNtged head? is fs sore *Pinifkisn i 2 . e house, of Which the Mahéniia “of Pathidla is the 3 aa : represghtative, ‘vith the closely allted families fe ee | 3 Nabhas J hind, Bhadopr, } Maldd, Badrakw, Jtindan,, . ° ', Didlpira, sikh ide Raémour nd Kot, Dita Z a and the more distanply» cofngptqll houses “of Pgrid- . Je 7 | ; , : kot and Kythal. ae i es : aoe - . . 8 , Le > oe 4. The ancestore’ of the Malws chiefs were eae of te simple Hindu peasants, asi ofoR Ag ptt exthac- > tion, who, ,ypout the niiddlé cf? fhe sixteentit * 2 eS century, emigéated from | the’ neighbourhood/ weg ’s Jasgalmir. They - were "pehtety] subjects of the Se ‘Afubammadad rulers of Dehli, and strictly observe d om —- the Bindu Law with spear es to sucressiog ro real a and personal propery as well as in gl other °, partieulays. J Ee ’ | - > Y : pe . : e ’ : a eee 2 Oe gs Te the? cb uurse of a hinder years, in ‘pro- ee poten re portion aS dhowaniteal authority "at Dehli» erew. weak, 1°". U fucownerss - the , power of the Jat settlers ideveased. They were ; ee hdlguzr’, or payers “of ev erus to the. Imperial > : is ’ treasury, and made noesort to shale. off a yoke ae whieh was in no way, ae ; yhput they Ze neguiredS & Sa r « LAW OF REN NHE RIT. ANCE \; ar ge grant s of land, founded villages, and becamy eee ee Senliliy: and of some social importance. They é << 3e8:~ eontin? hed moreover, like other oe. to follow © -) .-. fherordina ances of taco, and the. Shastaras. « C @ = ef € C , ae : < o.. Se. cx g \ € 6 se LE Pa eS 6. ‘But a at the, Jeeinning of the .eighteenth and gradually €zcome ep a -eentury, ‘the Malwa chiefs abandqued Hinduism Aget a Go. S1OC FOU 9 < {ok theeney air whieh was pes being cpreiched | y Gor ring, the last ang oe most inflyential of the ik AN etre Thé “hurdred. years that, followod < was an era gal anareby. The ‘vreat ‘Muhammadan “A TP = e : € oa frompinherent” weakness, falling asun- é « ‘e* der,’and the sikhg, day a day, gerne power and : teryi tory atethet expense 6f. their nominal masters, % } @ ‘ ¢ who camera new. faith but WGre unable to © des$roy ib Sikhism w wag then, oS, MMthammadgnism ; in the seventh ande eichbh canturies, and Wahabee- @ ism in the presents 2 ee of *the sword, and fine naw corfverts appeared AS pads to fi¢ht w with “each other as@with thie common, enamy, against whonr ‘. alone“ they eyer united. The Sileh's® did’ not ‘ce ©. * avbwedly abanQoxt the HindusCoat# of Laws Which they | had, fyom time ymmemoari ial, obeyed : and héither Nanak not. Govind had laid ‘down pu ae e~ | “. a fy. which their * “folSwoes skould be . Round Ith ee © felt. a, eonSiept fer Hin ‘ « ¢ es : mat tters of, slccession, and. 3 inhlritanice 5 ae they nat fism, with its 1 estric- = e ‘ « ¢ C ( y af ‘¢ Le € t ¢rae ° ’ _ TO S)EH CHItFsHtrs. ~~, x BAS oe ee 2. : a: “ons and prejudices, and refused to follow its, ee f ? y 1 29 2 ® = A préecepts whenever these swert Opposed to their oe > Be pe e Ries : ee .immediate interests. oe Scety was in a’ state :*° * ed a ‘i ® » of disintegration sande de emowalization. Pachimaw: —; Ss ° oy» : =>? . did whats was ri ight “in hi» Pdwn “cyes? and - Ps eg @ > 1 » » whatever’ hé was able to do with tmpunite Appeared, : > A tg d s ; J ® e j s = a z > . to him yight. Widows antl orphans ‘had nq Jelper ae . againststht powerfyl, pian hyours who diWdedtheir , +” "+ ‘ az ‘ lands amonest them at the pleasure 2 ; and th : pee - 3 res enly means by which» the smaller chiefs equid “, 7» oe ° ead : a ee / escape absorption was by attaching themselves, as : Bis eo, » , > » fudal retainers or vassals, to thé gte eat houses, who- ae . a y were able and willing to protect tNemin return'for » ? 9 a a Pe : : ® 2 service in the field. ‘hus arose the peat erate . oe » 3 > » chiefs, whos6 “obscure origin and ‘urlpsinciplo’ > oje,e? 2 , 1 11 2 a é > ) % ; acquitions were opens by mus extorted from , , . the Emperor pf Dele li, vho was stil the nominal a “8 . : ae of the Malwa, a wha was too. a ‘and aes » timid te refuse to ee the men whom he knew’. : e, S ” to be the most formijable encinies of his pore ae 25 fe > 5 a > re : ¥ ws > Ai acd oO a y) The FLAGSORS wWhgckh > IA 7», Athe jeginning of the, present cehtuny* cd thpm' to 6 sap the protect Hon of ¢ hdOBri tish Gobernment. » ° the fate which the a “Sable; chiefs tad so often - byoughy upoh ‘others seemed dilgely to bécome their » oo , own.” F Ragjit Singh, » Maharéj ‘ ofeLahore, having a , a reduced’ ‘a eahmicci n the chiefs in the, neighbour. nome of his capital, derennined td >oMuquer th 8 a > do )oe TW oF cf . : . whole got utry to the south of the Satlel, 3 ee 3 2 ©, «°°. the river ‘Jamna, hich, he believed, -he might . nee ces safely « see omaplish ‘ witlfout. comings tate ‘collision, oo ee “ewith, the ng rlish powgt "The coudition of the ee = aN : Gis- Sh lej*stitl thdse: oj nentl ly “fat ord che, Success of | : no . ehis designe Jea idus of each other, 4nd with no. | : = comreon bond,of union, how that the Mubeynmailan C ft i power bfd fin ally collapse « they froules, one by ° a, aS : * one,shage fallen victims s to the enefgy and dcter- ‘ . Gee e ming tion of Raw}® Singh, whose ambition knew no ss : ve : limits and ne scruplas, aud to whom the very < . ce | ; names® of ho onohirsa indepity qwere tnknown. The * « Malwa chieds, say their danver in time, and, at the ue os oe every aemaome when their” annihilation Seemed ° : tyevitable, threw, themselves S ite * mercy of the = ° : = B British Government, “wWaich, after, much hesilation, Pos accepted the phsition ind declared] the Cis-Satle Fae terfitory, under its ps -otection. : oe % coe e : é € PMc period of quick 8. 4 Then dollowed a periad of unbroken seeuri-, - during whhh Sikheg ¢ ee ee tys ¢ chaxt ee which theStyong power which prevented Rey cagsolidated, : 2 = . any a ack froin without, insistétk Spon’ trénquility Ww vant andemaintatned the smallest, ag ; well aa the ° & : eee " largest States jn Ing possession of ie dignstv ‘ ‘and € e e : i e pow er ae 1 ‘they ‘had. «posstsged wherftfirst. they us e*. élaimed te px rotection. elf, falieees this period: . « € BS | < | that. COAL. 's of “succession became, toa certain “8 : ? er 3 TO SIKH CHIEFSHIPS.® >» , Sh ae % { ° 5 , ‘s 2 de a he Tel zs Se 9 aa vere, uniform ands consistent, although 1 ie will be, ee : understood that these are -but corn pare ve’ terms .° : .? 3 : > when sagolied to laws iy hat prevailed ; in a . Hig ao 33° 7> : exceptionally -constituped,, y o which had ,lea anpesl, ‘So oS lately the 8 advamagés of order, Kis’ whick ad been : y > > » > : accustomed for 80 long to consider license *,sypony-~ eae > mous with a he lee “ae J e > & . : % *~ » ee 8 2 @ os Ss Seer The war, of 1845 27. the effect of the Satlej, campaig on “of EBS cae Gree se a 46 was almost precisaly’ similgr to*that cau sed? by Si i oO . “ne campaign of 1866e0,i= Northern “Germany. Sates = 25 The British Government, *whieh "had, for ryan Ce | deplored, a state of things, which ip” was unable, ° , : ; ; without breaking faith with tha,chie®,» to rectify; °, ee. which had seer’, yhe , people oppressed ani ground : i dowif by petty » tyrants; * wvtto possessed absolute - oe ower in thei respective § feic, _ seized, the op eek: ee : ye tunityewhich the folly ae ingratitu de of thg chiefs " had eiven, to inaweurate a new order 0 = Nee * ” Phe most .important? chiefs alone were pbrnjitte “d, 7 to retain twit Poser, while that of tite small er “Ong * ee was taken Silene hee Way : _ they were declared ’ mere Jagirdirs df the British Goyern mant, dnd the, << e whore of , their tel nes wis ‘placed undey the 5” * 4 _.. control ‘of Brifish Officers * and’ British Courts a . ie ? oe. ee : =o % e 2» Taw 9 ~\, > e . ‘ a€ € ert é \ a « « Se aoe = € ee 7 e ae « € ( e om , ‘ oe e e € _ & e ° oe = @ e & e 8 @ : e € 7 , a then, ¢i Sav n ers “\ _ same‘ lan ka ay Next came the oe 08 o€ conflict 7 vith the MuhammA4dan power, « 7 dur z which*the chiefShips gre up staduaily ts singly, follow wéd byt ae d of tran uillity ole fis the coiése equence of 1 aieir claiming period ‘saw the the power which, they 7 used, apdewhich itewas # misfof- ye ver had possessed. a \ R 1% 7 s 8 ‘ ack oe - qy = ats x é of, the Manjha, Scareply ae os a hundred «€ em were cultivators of th = ; 7% ° ¢ € ihe soil*enjoyeng nqne of fhe cqnsideration. which é c the Cis-Sutlej chiefs had, foy long, received from the Gou stl oF Dehlig Witt’ the last Bite of Ahmad e bot SifMlr and the Afchans, they rosd +60 sudden:power, e € and every. man who, : had epersy ahd courage @ q Satherall a band ‘of nar auders about hima and t gy plundered hetotntey, soizine*and holdings whatevey, che ‘he could. Many of _the§e Sikhs: crossed the . matctegodthe country to the very gates of € c ¢ «TO age OH HISFSHIPS. , ° Se j . ee ~Yyehli ; chile some of them seized large tratt? of land eae 5 gs Cis- Satlej, wich they coitinwed to hold against all. Pap aa comers,’ by the sword alone, *a tenure oe 8 4) oe different fi om that of ‘a WAlwa neienhe urs, o more r&semblids that fA Nofraane bas fied : : os » in the Welgh Marches, sever humdred year's ago. Le a ? a ® . . : >) Phe s aacendantey of the Sikhs % in the "Ranjjab aid The vise of Meg- ardja, Ranj KE Singh. hrans- Sathej, was pivhriet. Maltévaja Ranjit Singh Te ue a sxbdued them one by, ong; cna ‘Phangis, SS ie : : ee as, all"the great houses fell in turn, all so ° > ie gompletely, that the ‘tnlefships, , Yepame merely, te ee nominal. dependent ' on "tHe will of the Sover ‘eign On 2 Lahote » while the lays of» sauces Were ptac- : rg ? tedlly swept gway before they had-dite to crystale * > = lize nigetbelt rétural form. It will ae Be readily : : “sls perceived that itis 1 in the Oth "Satle} States alone that oe | | a search for precedents, w which rmagy throw some rgal . Hehe’ qn Sikh pra acticey is likely to,be suecessful. : “One great Trans- Satlej* chief, alone, ede Fatalt * ; Sing’? Adluyralia, the grandfather , of the reste . - 2 Raja*ot Kapirgagia,,held ie own avaipst tte, ae 9 oe a of thee ae of Lahore ; but he lad large Cis- : , ale} posseisions, which were under British prices x — ‘oe andplie held ups the, nae ‘ef England» as a» ° >. , shield against ‘the Hahérdj hia suctessitlly, poe it ’ ae is certain that the British Governnie Syould not oe @ > > 4 d .') ¢ LAW OF SNHERITANCE c oe intbrféred to save his estateS én the Jalandhay- oe Dodb, with which théy had no possible . ‘interest. as Satie}, cl chief, and his family’ ‘has commonly followed oe < ike usages éf the ANA pits «Ae : re ah ee ar : ae a ee 1%. The qrdinary rude of succession to Sikh 5 eee oN chielships was equal division among the song; , and Os. as ‘prithogenttare has ‘only prev Nuba in the three ae - ' prineipab sen of thest “hylkian familys namely, ae * Pattidla, N Yabha and =e ahd perhaps aL the = x a connected house of Faridkst, ‘The declarations of ; . *e «the chiefs themselyes can “be. depended upon but oo little, for thty Kave assetted défferent prinetplés at, os ; : ‘ different times Ys serve their Tmne tae interests. a 3 ‘ Ti the course of the Hisnute Tees dine the “succes- : sion to the Jhind States in¢ 1836," the agents of "ec! | Péfttigla, Kythal, Ntbha ahd Badidpax' déclared— ° The chiefs declare thax primogenture § the AE of the Phil- kian and Bhyikien | gamilies. < They, nevertheless, twenty years before, declaya? the rvle was renee amvoig a Ec Ei « (4 Thés Sirdar, then, must be, eerisidared as a Cis- € . : e : ees ‘ 1 a ee ee : “Tt would seem that Jhind has bef taken possession of by the ‘British Gower Tment ie conseGgence of the descendants of Bhup Singh | : eavingg -ecely ed a separate maiptenance, and having long ¢livéd« apart “ ffom the elder branck’ of the famify, but there is eaernc unusual in “such @ circums¢ance' ‘but; on the sonic Re dang n exact conformite “with the uniform practice of the touses Phulkign and Bhaikian, in ‘*¢ which the eldest son alway sesucpeeds to the w Hite estate, withe the , exception ‘of smal portions ee aoart for the maihtenalce of Joune2s “ children,”’ ate « ; = € : : € *e . ee = ( 13. The Philkién ‘amily, ghowever consists, ya aS has | heft “oven, shown, of eleven houses, and (, j AY yo - ? ee a ‘| , oa dispule whislt, in 1816, had arisen between two! the sons. wp 2 2 om > $ 9 “f them; ney Badrika and Bainidpir, the. very.’ | , ehiefs ia in 1836, declared * that primogenityre re was the universal rule, Wrote to Sir David Ochtér] erlphy » that thé Betas of ¢ “dé a ees Pwiltign shouses 8 9 - » prescribed?an equal partition of in herit tamce among eee e the sorts. i: . , pees : . ~~ 9 ee Me Cg pe Bae es ee > > A. third case‘ “yet mone strongly shoys ag we fhe dee ‘ Pattiala and his t-»- little weight can be,plucet on ‘the formal’ deqlara- ther, Mpey assert both, *ogtions alternately. tions of the chiefs. Qn the death, of Raj ja Séhib ® ae Singh ef Pattidla,, his second Ts Ajit’ Singh, * ° advanced a claim to fAalf the tersitory. This elaim > "was sul#nitted to the’ different , Phui}jan chiefssfor ; oe their opinidh = hey declared ‘Ajtt Sireh Satie : > to am equal share’ of alletha ancestral estates off his zs father, in accordance with thee custom of the. mprotected Sikh States generally, and the Phelkiin » >» » housés in particular.s "Yet, subseqhently? swayed | C “by other motives,*»several sf, the®chiess hddressed * : ee the residant "at Dehli to the > effect telat their fornier -- : statement was *oflly given at the retuett of Sirdir >’ 2” re Ajit Singh, and that thes true, rule ‘of succession ae ‘amoue them was that the whple estate devolved on ° | ‘the Aalst son, subject *to 4 , provision for the” , a ° "s s 2 d D> - a a younger sons = ‘ 5 : “Sy 2 oe€ q « « € € ; ( ~ SLAW OF INHERITANCE € of ‘ ye The tifuth lay between thee conflicting state, te ‘non have the Phiilkidn or Bhewa chiefs ever a&hered unifortaly to one aule er thé other, i the disputed cases whith | were referred to them were egiae d Dyed 0 fizod Saw. Yet it ‘ig evident that primog seniture has’ prevailed only if the three families of Patéifla, Nabla and J hiad, and °all the otkerg have adopted « the moe of equal*partition emong Sms, mith tie exception of tose cases ih es Pattidla, ahbitratilys and for reasons of its. own, has awarded a larger chat to the eldest, the « second°or even tte youngest On. Under the influ: « “© encé of this rule cof equal ‘partition the Bhadour € « «€ _ estate has Heentbroken utp inte several chjefships, * that of Malod Mo two, and in the sane way with pther families. Hyen JB theset thive exceptional eases the deviation ehas : conly taken — vite thie last hurtdred years, ahd contrary to what they, Weigh the exception of eS Boclares; SOe lately & as 1836, # be their owy law of inheritance (1). And' _ Raja Bhag ‘Singh: ‘of J hind desired a secofid son, 6€é shovfghPattig a, Nabfia and J hind have’ adhered to “the rulé _oftprimogenitures vist Sven these have made attempts to set it, aside, Qs, in 1812, wken “Partéb Singh © ‘to. sutcceetl hita, and dekvered a ppper Bt foe Sir,,D. Uchterlgny, which 1) Aattelo of ah. Clery ave November 1836, to Mr, es Metcalfe; am « €TO SIKH ‘he British Governfent declined to sanction : 4,02 There are num Philkian famili 1es wi *ch Positions *° 2 ‘yo % (a.) Sirdirs Dip Sins >» the e estate between them. . 8 o : 9 » » es ’ Se > a > j ® a ? , > - . v7 — iy a oy 2 4 ys ce i + cee (o.) Onthe death-of Sirdar Bir Sijnch Hk f coo Mk, De bet mp » ’ eis ¢ a vec ic T : - a ‘< oo ea q \s. 7 é } . ehree sows, Jowahip Bineh, fh Singh and . ° 2 > ~ 2? e Fa Aranda ) 4 n : eae i J Hea Singh, divided his S pessessions equally, except es % 5 9 de ® y that the eldest received. a, somewleat ‘larges share — > > 7.\ = ~ — ‘ 10 pee - hed (Sir dare ~ kharach) age the repr&sentative of ‘the i ® ily, 2% 1 on the de#th pe Eee gs. ee el family, aAd on the death of Jowahir peHINLSo, Wi1Th« & ® 6 ® OJ t > 9. d q ® = ) y? ) . 4 ~ out male sie, his estate was assigned, by ° 7, 22 ye 7 7 Z ~ 2 2 y VY om} 1D 7 ~ oO, fa <5 nt Patt ] Ala,- to Kha ae ZN 1syo 1, the 2a bi Wi Usd gy S o CO iit A, e ° , rother. : ° , ° ° oot cy (6) Sirdar three sons, dete = 2 : Singlf.” Gn his de co tween’ them egsgzty 2 = - 3e a the second gon, feceiy cs sbmewha t larger share e ® = * ee > ¥ aad hjs brother. . ea » =p : , 2 ® . 9 ; ® ce » j a y ye” » . £) é - : es = (d.) Sirdar Man Singh hae two sons, , Dalel : % d ae 5 ; ee eae mae ~ Singh and *Bagh Singh’ » On his death, the elder a > > *") e brotleey took two-thivds, of the estate, and the ’ . « e > . > » d > , > > > - , > d & 3 Pré edents fr ain P) { evan > wnpljL]© y d. — ie showing that DT?NnLO? 2201 { 708 ihe rule amgngst them ¥ Godiva / ¥ Ute it > > > 3, » 9 s The Biate_of Bhas : ns Uso ® 2 ) ’ 8 e 8 j . eo yy a a > D> a * °@ a) > » > e ® ® b > = 3 , > ® . e D> @ . d © > é Dd > d > 2 > d > > e > » 9 > Sone » FTP, Site of Wr. of AME OLEALEG OF Mal bLOs ® ® ; ofA de ® = @ eo >,( t € ( ee he OF INHERITANCE as ghdwing that therule of Hen peinganhid “cl poe that their rule was yrimogenitute, could theme eesy was not e- ee “oservtd by then# not provegé40 haye beeti so. The fact was > > : > ? > ge} ‘disely the reverse» eaitbakeh pingh, the Head of t e Bhai family oF Kythal, died ih 1765, leaving. ave. sons, Biidh Singh, Besu Singh, TakhtSingh, DPhanaa Singh and ‘Sukha nee among whom, his eft was equal! ly divided Desi Sing» Bevante it he most powerful, But this was only by his OWl spears HS son, *Buhal Singh succteded, not?as the eldest, pat beeaifve his brophg of LabSingh; who hdd réBel led, against his fafher, was in conAnement at the time cae Dest Sinfh’s death.» Dal Bing! why however, escaped, defeated and ire pissbrotl her, aitd seized the e > > d 8 > > oO ee a> : S thole estate. e This was ha first o&casion o1 which” D the chie eiship and estates of > s0n, ana? it was by force of arms and mot by cis- y tom. The rble pf primogeniture was, ‘after thia, > % Tt = 2 a 7 Y natuyally asserted by Bhai,fuil Singh, to cover ‘his own illegal sgizure of the estate. In the same 3 ® gaanner, on the agath’ = BI hal, Pacssac Singh, *first cousin of Bhai Lak Singh, his térritory was Fequallt, ; divided between his sons, #anidv Sinth Gulab 9 J gt49 . . » 0 : Singh and, Sdneat tSigsh. _ ‘e =e 9 5 3 é $ ® @ > iG. The Phelpidn and, Bhaikis fn " houses are fhe onty ones which have every pretended to follow’ the rulp ar primogenfture syniver rsally, and it has been shown that jhis pretence i is colrtradicted by the facts. , With regard to other ehieBitps Cis ae > 2 » o a > > Precedentg among : » other Sikh chiefships pipving that primo- meniture was, not the Sikh rule, but purti- tion, Mnore on Mess equal, among the sons. "yo » —¢ weeive 2 lage ee in Sirdar Kharak ided the A de- eae ed the S ®Awrronewrne CHIEFSHIPE: =p ; : ; > ; 3 a 0 Ve 2 (\ 2 v2 » cy? mF oh 3 e “2 Sialba.Sirdér Hari Singh cigitled his - Oe 4 : > y d a ; oe 9 ov ©) wot ® & > : . » > . > 00 ® gb > > (de ° Sindhsnwairge On the > sigatit, gf Sidr ? Se. > d Tee ar Singh, his sons Githbursh Sing oh, Amir Ore Se > . E e. a : a . 3 bh Pend. Rutt2n Singh aul Lreceeded fat z > : e ee > ee a . (e.) ,Attari. 3; ddr Jode .Singtt left tWoe, .° e ® a5,D : : d gons, Partab Singh and oo Singh, whe s suc i @ 7 : ; i o > Z 5 » LO thr es ws Laue, > = > a a e é ed e > ',9 ceeded equa o e > > e P e iL . (fy Inthe same family: the *three »Sirdargs.*. e = ae : ; now living at Attari,wZitin Sings Hai Singh.a and : eA jit Singh hold the jagir of Shaikéran, 5 ® a ; - thpair 7 “C shares, and Mt $vill so descend to their heirs. a <= Ss © &» & ° e e e ° e of the Bhangsi eee a ‘an 1 indepehdgnt ae tween his'tgvo eer s be oe Pe ee ey ae sons Sikha Singh 7 Si nb ie a : ee | ® »? : ® . e (i) oThuangseor y-This? Fastato, on the stegth of = ae ©) po Oo we e G24 peo <4 — Qu © oy bomreett 0 Bae Ca oS OQ HM mM a) ™ @ po Oo » ¥ 1} + Sirdar Mit. Singh, was styided betw gen his’ two ae népheys Biat Singh and Bhanga Singlf, in-what 1s : a > teFlied the POE propottida 37 Bhanga Singh, ,,¢ ee although ‘the younger, receiving 3-5¢fs, and Bhag ; 5 a db o Singh, the élder, 2 “5the'baly. © o™. s eeGz ; : (ee OF INHERITANCE c oe C $ C G { < ©. Phe succession of > 17s ‘sOn failure df male: Leirs, the estate~< “. the widow, failure of ¢ male issue. < « ‘according to ordinary Sikh, law, descencs to the x € € « Sew. c _ for her “Tifé, This rule, which i caumeonion | = = GC < = . < € Bk atl the principa al fatnikies, with the« exception aie ee of iK6 “Phaiki ifa, and ¢héd Singhptrias, Gis very ~ much, mo ified ilb “practice. It willc readily be understood thet at a timé when passessions which had oe on by. the sword, had to be held; wy the : % & e7ord, the succession ef saree ie wita the custon- eee X ary gattendants of anaré cny, favoritism and weak- é c ness, which. Jett the State a prey to its powerful i 3 c csaneighbaurs, vf as § ¢ lew ed. with dislike and suspicion. one Sikh women Ha Weeshow n themselves often capable C Cc Fou aes of « ryling with vigour and «ability, and such ex- C ¢ = me amples as eu: us Kour of P attigla, Rani Dya - : Koar of Arabilla,dnd ig Sadia Kour, for long the agknowledged kead of the,great Kanheya con- go federacy, w il always be remembered by the people with respect ; ;‘but as a rule, they were oniy dis- \ c —« ne tinguishd front the once of, the rest of India by : oi a looser. fnorality, and treir successiow to’ a chief. : C € C es : ( ship’ was fsudll y the precursor vf its ruin. To obviate, such a calantity Sikh custom _ asserted cthe x ee The custom of chad , darddina or karews, Y Sioht. of the brother of the deceased to mary hig c _ @ « = ‘ widow, and thus to saccecd, through, ue ¥ oman, to the estate. ‘The ene lay, with the elder brother Sane ef) , ’ TO SIKH Saithacrees 3 > , re , But the ’ widow ae often ‘allowed : to igdke her brother *of hep husband. This form of pee was known as hazewnre hin Init, ® woman wag has bee% ‘marriéd)> om "cltaddard elie, 4 “throwing » asheet’.), 2om the chief cetemony obsgrzed., The ‘karewd’ marriage, was @nivers sallyacknowfedged as lawful? among nS Jat Sikhs? and. the issme .as , ebmpetent to sucded to landed an’ persgnal prs? ‘Serty ; but it has ao béen c@asidered of equal oy and authority ee the regulay a eryah’ pr -* giadt,’ which, is secntracted swith as virgin; although the issue of the datter would, or dis =< 2 choice, Which naturally ‘ofteh fell’ on the* pounce . 3 ) narily, i ivy case of dispute as to succession, be; con- , sidered to havg an equal claim, Rouok this was sometimes dented, dnd the children of ihe regular vyah took precedence éf thp issae gf the karewa. The families of Pattidta, Nabha dad Jhfhd have, -of . late years, 2 actreed to abphdon ehis custom altogether, » it being now unnecessary, age the sSucc~Sion has , been” dedlaved by Governfiient tq:remain sAwvays | with nfale “heire? ss Die, as jvill herea tfter be shown, 5 they have ftequently obsérved» 6 in foymer years. a ° > J a a The Herewa mayrjage 1s stridtly that performed »- with a “brother” s widow only, and although ib is also known as thaddarddlna’ ret ‘tltis tert i is of amore .., @ 5 e > a¢ Co OF INHERITANC ¢ 4 Ca c ( ; ee Geary Sa io eo ue bana : o ‘snd in@udes an ‘informs ee z extended ome anix g, ‘and indéludes ¢ : < : . c : Gi wren e a4}, >} 4] as A her’s ee marriage with wonten‘* other than the! brot | x c t a € G c € 5 € 4 i rn oe 2 ee 3 ~~ ; ‘ eG e0 ¢ a ( « G6 8 « € G c G f ¢ € Ba Sea is s J ae a . Amore the Sikhs t he Lrstewife w oul often be Ts 2 * sp G C e : e ‘ a a are Pe ae ca -eren 2 and wives F 2 an married with the orthéddox ceremonies? and wives. . c c of A v< ¢ ¥ So ee + , 2 ay ylay Ere mG O¥ -. married subsequently ly the .simpler ceremony, Cc C c é 1447 : t} - ys any. cases, was little than an ee whichg ing many , CASES, vi 6 1 httle moré é C c a ey ae = oe - "excuse for cont ‘ubinage, nor wére such wives coh- a ‘ € ¢ : F € CE. an rr £ Br oS sidered as the eq Kuls © of Sone first married. If c x e a ¢ ‘ : : oe 2 ae > the ‘women SO marnied (We e of the same caste € > gaste (fot huimila). « The inf Qrir ali ty of the wustom . € v a ac ; “caused ah justly to ce y iewed with suspicion, and «« > € ( . C a es . e a {. 2 e ° < 8 : c ther ehaye b Deen many «cases a Sik families of Ga: ( : j < . «7° 3 ( : od wonten, who were no mere thant ervinary concubi- c ( € = Gos ‘ ; nes s, ol Limipg, on the death of their lord, the estate ae C Cc C z 5G : 2 ee Lor themselves dro thelr sons, as lawful wives t . c C e ( Ca ; ; : ( = : married by chaddarddlaw. a oo C « < C ‘< C « « . Cc j ef : G € e e . a ( : & <= "The Ccenioriterc of With 3 ror: ard to the seniority of widows, and € ( < “¢ ; ( c . A 5the marri iage of séns,’the op Cis-Satlej is »Pandits to Senor? ee guestion was referret declared the latv to be thas Qfthe Mitakshar a, w ice : Sikh fanhlies in a House avhere ‘there e are many W >to: have seniority who is: of the Same cagte> ag husband, @ not mucly regard, GS iD whom the eltiet was me er a W ife ao ea is shadi ‘ranking sbafore daina., ’ » CHIEFSHIPS., : az inion oy all & Q unanimor u's.) e But tis ge of caste fhe Bu ° ® , Y eieis tle , éldest » @ er t tfiktn by eo e > : > Oo » ® The elder son losesshis positien sould raarried | The e unanimo asgopinion of the chiefs above referred folld ws— to’ was as cf to his forefathers @ a > 9 > 9 subsequently* to ‘his voulee: brother. a : é a e “Tf there be two utering buothers. goetrotl 10d in two families, “from any cause the marriage of the elder brother cannot take 1 ace. ee ae theparents of, the girl to wham the y ounger br gther ‘4s ebetrothed ‘be importunate for the marriage, the father wi ill not permit his youngér’ ; S deceit to be first married, becapse fae performance ‘p his fAi®fathers of “* the fupegal 9 rites &c., from? the*hands% of ah elder son cou Id ngt take, » ** place unless he hel been married pricosto his yowhger br qthen, “marriage, of ®he eldgr tiv, ‘* from the importunity of th , therefore, precede. , "If the younges e girl s pai buts, be first married, amd Ba sé elder brother afferw ards, then the per formamce of the funeral obsequies Pe Brohi¥fited to him,,and it may be said the yhunger fs lakes thé® place of the elder b¥ reason of | 118 being eiirst married.” “J es: a e (1) PAttisla,. Thind, Khytal Nabha, Thanésar, Bassi, Biria,e Bhurt- ghar, Chichirowli, Shahab4d, agadri, Brgia cmd Gadowli, — ide Mheir oe of 10th January 1828 ; also those of Pemdits Dias RaP™Chandar Migr Rik hi Kais. ot Pattiala, ef the same date, ? @ @ ® ea , , » — ehief yieidows ana the maya 2 ives, ag gerts herCe, e e eg : € e e Be: LAW OF INHERITANCE € C - € « ne o = € © at. - e G [ fy é,, ©. Chundeband and oe of the wives’ does not howevet “. Bhaiband the two or- € dt a Z tition. Bue Tey affent the ‘succession of the sons. a, has been | € fea ot skown! that-a profeyence'i is sometimes given to the . — : lh dyen ofe an ortho€o ox over the ous of an @e ‘ it ae or oliadflangyilna marriage, bus in other ‘< « cases the sfns share equally. . © & € . < | oS « eS f ng ee oe. Two ‘mnetlfodse of divi sian, however, prevail . . : eu" among femilies i in which the right of primogeniture 0 « is Santen know ast chundévand and bhaiband. if wk - poole to ike, first ener the estate is divided 6 = ; a < equally * between ‘ the mothers, for their respective = isste ; and in, the second, ‘it is divided ecually « among all tiie _SORS. Suppose — ‘to have ° left two ‘wiv es, the elder having one son _and the second three ; by r chundabdtid dae the one son of oS the fitst wife would, take , hel ‘the estate, and the fees sons of the second would divide the other : ¢ halif between ‘hem * by bhaiband division, all four. & = « : € @: c cohs youl share equally. “THe custom of evnda- ene « f° baad, Was “almost entirely confizetl to the Sikhs of : the Manjha,while in the Malwa: equal division c ( C ; Gee a awas the rule. ee a € C € C ( “ C € Cc ¢ C C « C ea ( & ac ( ( « Byecedents show ing the “custom eof chad- x. 18. ‘The following : Oee cases which: prove the dardalng or -karewa er the Ch Ge ee cKistence of tite custom of chadda rddina, or karewe C C y ce cod eee aa C Se ob ‘ : ¢and its legal valud,. in many ‘of the \princk; val Sikh, ° o families. \ att » ° @ 9 8 2 Q e e: wp J (a.) » Pathala. ABahe, Amar Singh mawigdys by chad@arddlnas the widow of hjs brojhet Hone mat Singh, avho died without * mnale issyp,, and suc- > Eee to the whdle estates : , ‘ oe : e i : Ngbha * “amir Singh njarriedt in the ° a, D #me manner, the widow . pf his. brother rKdppte Singh, at diet wititout issife, "and succe eedad to tae estate. Raja Jaswant Sieh, Was “the issue of @ ° . 5s ® Q ® ® this marr lage. ‘ ea ® ® ® e ; | > i > ? 9 ry Pp = 2 tie <= (c.} JShind. Sirdar, Gajpat synch wWar- 6 ried, by chadderddina, the widow ot his sbrothew, Alam Singh, “ho Aiea without male issue. ° o 4 : 3 ; @ a » (d.) Thanesar.z—Indar .*Sen fharried -a womiatenmcd Hurrubs by ion he had asoh N odh, Singh, » who adopted «| the Sik]efaithe On Ake death Bs of that Sen? his brpther 9 Chanday Sen * mitrried! the aon by Mtatldaiiina, the issite Being” Bhitg Sin eh and Shang ‘a Singh, the thiets of "Phanesar. . a e © Mehtab Singh, ‘his ‘brother, Guth Singh’ married e aD Se the widow and omicd ihe estate: ee ‘») 9 9 6 ® e e Fe oe > “Thanesar's >> On, ie ‘death of Sirddy »° oea c « LAW OF INHERITANCE Coe « ( < ‘ ( Bs hey “(A YS Shahid. ‘Sird4r8“« Dharam Sing’a cS C oe ; a ofl : hs : Cc - « ‘©, and Katam Singh wére uterine brothers. On the pe 8 see LAR the for mer, tke lattes married ‘his two < oy wdw S Hulk ma and Desa, fy harewas Hukma bore « € oc & ae se him twd. Gongs, ‘ Gul. ab “Sineti ‘and Mehtab Singh. ; The lates ied, ies ving two widow s, Karam Kour ‘ and SA hib Kur. The survivi ing brother Guiab Singh “married e2uip Kour by. herewa. ° et es c 2 ° € € , ae (9.4 Leper Sing4r ‘Hari Singh, a Méinjhe C - © Sikhs married one Itdjen, fo * conection of his SA 256 ——'- own, by chagitayditnas® ‘Fhe “two sons of ' thig mawiage, Sird dus Dew: a Singh and Charrat Singh, < : became, one, chief of Sié lbah,. and the other, chief . «* Of Rupar. eons “ a ¢ ( ( : e $ ny ¢ as : ¢(h.) *Lundki. Burgdha | Singh was first UES : Seog by vyak to® Pardhoun. He then married, é ( oO ons f i ke: redoet, Berin, the full sister of Pardhoun, whe Te was a vidow' cand: had been married to’ a dis- ao & c se «tant relfitive of his ofgn. Thecostale was divided «. amon's the sonScof P ardaoun a Berin by chunda- Cc me C — C, @ oe c Som c : © aa ee : @ f e Cy : : C. ° C Ud. Se: area AG = c (2) Mustaphabdd. sirdars Mehtab Singk € ¢ 3 “= e Sr e and Mirz a Singh cae utex ae) brotherss On the tc e* Cc ‘ death .of* Mirza Sing! his oth or cet the = . A ~ € : eee Guc ee v dow by Cela, aa, ye © : ( € : C C ; ' ¢ nn @«TO SIKH CHIEFSHIPY. » , . ; 2 » ? ? , ce’ 5 Cf. y Kalsio.— Sirdar Jodh Singh, \ Ohier’ of, ere Chichrouli, was the issueof a chaddarddlaa hare’ qage , , ® " ’ contracted by Gurbuksh Siagh with a widow,*of Isis SoS ae tribe, but,’ mot previatly sconnected, with him : : It is onesie ihe Hoericn that »Jouh ‘Singh was . » illegitimate,’and that his other w was newer married, ' e 5 to Gurlfuksh Siveh. , : oe neil ’ e — ° ; ye: 4 o° 3 5 ° tke ) Bioaouesicdhs Koh Singh’ married, | she widow of his brother lsehtab,Sing. cae co = > > 5 : : . 8 ; ea = . -(l2) Lashkar, Kh Git —Sirdare “Mohr Sing, aes * ead of ‘the Nishdnvwala vebufederacy, married, by -> chaddgr aoe the widow of jis elder bogher Amwtip * » Singh, and obtained the chjefship ard property. — Dp ; 2 Oe {m.) Lathe. Six Jae, .Girdit Sitgh marifed the widow of his brothe Sahib b Singh, and obtained the chiefship. eo ety eat: 3. - : : ed . a ) © (n.) Rangar Nautgal. —Sirdig Wave Singh’ “*, Sa marrfed, By changer dilna, tRe widow. of his byother’ 30 . > Jamiyet Singhg? wi10 shoud him Argan Singh, eartd a daughter, “who was married ¢o Raja. Dey-Indas . e ® Singh of N abbha, side becante stlte mother or the : «Gg “present, Rij. ees i : es a 3 ~. > > . a 5 . 9 ? 1] kh vas All these precedents ha ye beef, tpken from, “27 NS Ae a e > PF e e ® @2e~— £ @ e & ’ °an oe TAW OF INHERITANCE C oS Brstnge. or Khatré the famdis ies a Jat Sikhs, fesiGent both in tle &. origin the custom of ¢ chaddardélna. es not allowed, “nor aré es tssue of mariage to inherit. uc Cc C C- a) Maépjharand Malwa.’ Butdo all Sikhs of Bréhman € competed, a Khatri. origin, the re-marriage of ‘widows, oC sgendvally, and the mariagorof s, brotKer’s widow 1 in partigulfay i is ‘ddious and ‘anlaéwfal, nox can the dssue . of sach riafriage legally inherit. Raja Te} Singh gf Lahére, the Commantee in-Chief. of the Sixht army, was-a‘Gous Brakman by bir th, and ‘adopted: Sikhism in to push his fortune more successfully at Ideore. “nif his old age he married the widowess his cousin Kishen Singh by what was : “alled” chadddrdéing, and thas lade seme time after bore a aon, Naringar Singh, “he child is, however, incwsapetent to ‘inherit : thei issue of a chaddardalna marriage contracted by a Brahman ‘Sikh being ilevitimates and: Harbans Singh, the brother of Te] Singh, and adepted by him before the bittlp of Narindar Singh, hds inherited al? ihe property: . The Sikhse of- Brahman’ origin are few*in number,,but . they maintain some of their Hindu préyudices and exglusivenéss ; although they’ are regarded as outcasts by Sethodi” Brah- niang, who will only give them their daughters ‘in marriage fox vers, large Sums of money, and even ‘then the gins ane considered .as. dead, and have no further cqmmunication. with, their own “{ farnily. < ms @.: ° } TO SIKH CHIEFSHITPS, e ° ° ? 9 ‘ @ This‘is certainly * the Practice, amd\e" Gour, | fee oe Kanoujha, Sarrarieh, and DubBeh B -dhraardé. The Soe ! , Sdrstit Brahmans, who ae the” most numervdus 4 af Mee the Panjab; are m@re e sffberal, ‘and dq. snot refuses : eG intercoutse, with? one éf their tae: who has - °s -% e e bd » become @ Sikh. Even among the strietey classes ) e e 2 thé son °of a Brdhman Sikh may* recoyer the position fSrfeited by hi’ father, "a8 Raja Heybaas , . tees Sinch has dohe. Fle has not en the o pahat:* oe ts the Sikh ‘baptism, and Yolfows th ordinary Breih- x Be minical, customs. That , the feeling oF vaste supers : ae S idvity i is raot etre last swhen "a ania Wolun- me tarily abandons his case, is Soy by the refusal, OL Sirdar Bhhp Singh of Kipar to betroth, his daughter ; os by a Brdhmari woman whom a ‘had tnarried by chadgardélna, to Dalfp Singh, Maharaj¢ of Lah¢re. > The priestly, furdily of Badis ape Khagris. The Khath qSikhs, » ® * Bishan,Singh, the son of the ‘famous Beds Séhih , Singh, married by. chdddargéina , a widow of. ay oe, | a famil? “not related to hing ‘and ha ad 1 issue Attay’ : Simegh,? ‘the fat} key of Babas. Khost Sine! and’ , , Sanpuran Smch.” These Past, though nien of ereat 2 - 9 ® toy ae ixtfluenee among che. Sikhs,’ are still sonsidertl AS 0 legitimathy their fishers, béipg ‘the issue ‘of a chaddardatiea marri iage, and cannot, marry info E families far their faterior in rank ad, influence. ‘ee .~ =. ® ’ ° ° nies Jae 9 ; e . ® @ » : I Ces ° ey »a . f a a & a ea «28. -¢ ¢ LAW OF INHERITANCE a Attar Si ints] h inheritedta mere‘ fraction of the large “ee ‘estates vwwned by his faves, a his sons Khem Sinchaind Sanpura a Singh lost even this; although, sl rig the xegeneys they revived smadl grants from =: the ances tral jag is at Shah ptw'and Nas{rpur. Ge € € C ‘ Gs oi Khatri Sikh familier, are those of which Sirdars J owahir Singh, Nalwa and Jhanda ‘Singh Botlia ave‘ the respective beads, but. in c q neither of these had tkare, seen an instance of a o © € C « < © ehadéardéina marriage. . C &. ‘ ac es mee < ( . oe : C os Wo Sipe ay. f * +8 O:s qs : eae Ie 19" The right of* wrlows to inherit was ing the righ Q widows to inherit in denen by. the Bhaikian family of ny: tal. and the Bhaikian and 4 ¢ cle ol ere ve ae by “the Singhpyiria Sikhs. “Phe a Tawevee Og much th¢y may have denied the ris shi,” practically admitted it by allowing: the curstos n of chadiar- a dgina' marriage “to. be Spseresd in Gheir family. Sirdars Budh Stick and §tdh Singh Singhpuria << Wes ‘e full | brothes. ‘On the ‘des.th of the latter, Z Buidh Singh married hfs two Widows, Sada Kour ; 7 > nd uke Devis ‘and by these ladies he had six sons, Who irherited two- thirds of. the, estate Dy chundaand, the ther, third being inherited by Be end Singh, bora‘ by 2 former regular ‘marriage, thus paoupe, that.the i issue of a‘ * harewa: murriage Ss. Was entitled to shdre equal y with those of the € ¢ C ( @TO SIKH CHINFSHIPS. ; s , o > m coat tt 1] i > » » a j . > ® & = > more orthodox vyth, > * a) ® j - : > , ° C@addard&lna not The , Bhaikidns, however, did not permit the oo ved HL tne: custom of ghadderdéion, but the absolute denif . ae eis: of the rgght of the side cannot obe nMiainganed? oe % > ® e cc > ; ee in us prescpce of Eaane faeta.:» —* Sees % ® » s, oo : > * The ecneral rule was cer tainly | against the » widows & the follgwing sprecdents will aioe 2 ‘ 8 9 t e » e 2 * (a.) Bhai Gundy, § Speh gied witho}t male ? issue, but leavihe 4 tidow : > his Fea brothers, -LaAl : , Singh and Bassiwa *Sin’h,- divided, the “estate bess a oy > > 3 » . = tween fhient : : : 2 @0 ® . 0 e € > e 3 hips CO; y Bhai Charrat Singh died sgithout tifale . issue. His Witloar only received -maintertayce from Bhat Karam Singl, the bra gbher, aehG inherited fhe estate. Oe Siig 3 : <5 Sve ys 9 : ; . - , >; e ° (e) Bhai Raha Sin eh died, without malg » issue, and Lal Sin ch, his, |, younger by sother, stook the - i >» estaté, 3 giving a village to e%ch . ine widewg? : : = an) * 2 ° so ® e” » » . ° ? *(d.) Bha? Budha Singh Pad wahout” male : issue, Jeaving four frothorsDhatna Sing eh, ‘Desi : Singh, ‘Taght Singh gyd Sphti Sine oy, widow cto inh erit; was dis < & \tizetly’ owed: The first Ww ag on he death of .« e* : Bhat Takht Singh, ‘onccof "thie four Sons e Bhai I = ae Grirbiks $, Singh the real fo under of the. family- te c « € « ee ais widely « Mai Suklia, not without’ opposition, a « : inherited the éstate of her husband, and held it for uae =. et hree' Fear$, when Bhai ‘Lal Singh, Gir ‘dig ‘Singh, e € -* ‘Basdwa Singh and Karm Si neh attacked her pos- == qx ; « Sree .c 1 c= <« sesgions, and havarg bought cover che inna : € © ane: : divided th¢*-estate bebirepn them. The . second : ae case, of Rani Rattan Kour,s of a stinilax chant o- - terg for althéugh, on the de&th of her husband, she Poe! se. Hela the propelty four or five years, she was theu ® ( C Resident:at Karndd, fiers cohsidetable light on # ( Cc. « c ¢ G4 a“ ~ ¢ go « ‘*. any obseuresp oints of Sikh law. €TO SIKH CHIBFSHIPS. Bhai Karan? Stneh whs the, son we: Dhana He y Roe Singh, and succeeded to his estates, in Bh daughters, al? marriedss "Bat only one Sirdar amin Singh of Mani Ms she havie ‘child °% hai “Lal Bngh; the first cousix of ‘Karam, 2 ag > 1810, leaving «a widow, Mai d the wite of, ren. Singh, nd head’of the Ky thal famil¥, immediagel y claimed fhe estates Sh David “Othterlohy LAl Singh to ‘his claim, or the widow fo acobpt a -confprongise, but this, sher Pidleteaathlc: eleclinad a inebiias fo do. however, to relinquish hér claim in favor ® 8 youred at oo to ing tedinguish® she, consid eripe's righte wrsolute and She was willing, of Amar Singh, one of ‘her. grandsons, by theewife pst aaa this Sir eet was wills ing to recommend” for sagcfion. ° ae ° The Philkid Rajas &t first declared in favor of the swidow, but, sybSequently, at the "instiga; ass@r ted, ein a moni imsat of Sirdar Haier S 6 tion of Bhai Lal Singh; acl Sit Dav id Ochferlon in hig Judgment, for the pippese of frat, injustite ands deceptfon, ‘that the "widew had "no right to stigmatized as framed, jnherit. interest oP policy, withoub any, rosea to truth, is evident from numerous disputed caseg,in fhre first half of the ‘present century, and aseta Bhai Lal a 5 > sbari, an : ueees fy &h dea- ® @ That the ayers assert gd*whatever was heir . The deuds wf Bhai we ® Karags Sing, 2 > > ®@ ; 9. > » g ® » ° 8 = : > "ee ® 2 ° @ 2» x e @ e 8 sey ® oa ct 2. e > > ° 0. a ® 8 . ° 9 9 > e . ® ® The cotfecting opis nionseof tive chiefs. » . : w @ @ @ @ e ® Be € > ® "3% ® 8 gs e e » * . : ® ie gy ° e ; e° ® —— @ oe e®9.0 e ‘ ‘ es SS = OT Se * Oat a « LAW OF INHERITANCE € ~ aie ~ a So Singh’s ‘dgfiial of the right of tlig ‘widow, it 1s notori- cf ¢ « = ee) OU: thahe. pee and, by his inflyence and Me Se Sparel DEOrEne "Bas Sse Singh, his, ‘first cousin, , . , takihg DOSSESS ion af Ty natiga, the estute of his full P : oo brother Gérdit Sin gh, on the plea that, the right ‘ of suece ssiqn lay en the widow, .and* that for a... a ‘ considerable time she did exercise real atithority Ce” ‘ al actually eyjoy che novertue ef these Ifnds, ¢ and, | : C G . " Mominallys both, till the day y éfther death. <= — « an: ¢ €. ( : ‘ « & ¢- c C u s : « ee Cc WV b i np 4 . £ : - ae ee Tle Decish Gov erntient, in 1812, decided in € en” NnMENT. € ( ¢c ( « © favor+pf{ the “ iow Ma ‘i Bhas chari, and she held “© ee the. whole peal cantil her coe in April 1818. c : Dee She. left AW all in favor ‘of het au andsons, the child, \ ; gen of the Tada of Mani Majra, ¢ ‘of whom the eae younger was her favorite kinsthan n, and was gene- rally understood to be ber atlapted son... Bhar Lal c ‘ c es Singh ef Rhytal oft once ‘asserted the claims which dad beén dented in 812 , in favor of the Gvidow, 5 c ¢ < ‘ ©. and this*time with augre sucapss. | . Cc €, ‘ é < ‘ oO « Cita * Q k c € OTe cace Ge. OS cee me rie ae ; ae Shes % e ie ase%e-opened in debiditis intatver of Mai Bkigbari, in 1819, € ¢ © oO the Governme ent had declared that he future = © des seen vould be! ‘censide red «on the death Cof the « ¢ Rani, aS sfaschiy might a lter i it. the claim es ants “rere (1) —Bha i ee con ‘first cca of “ Be net “Karam § Singh, J Mai Bhaghari’ s hus band ; (2) oo ‘dars < ¢ C . Cou € ( : Neat> females Were exclutied | from suecéssion ‘aecbtditig es es to the custom of the Ghaikién house. Lg has : been shown to pe wrttrue, 5 ard "Sree not “custom .. : | e : had alone preventegl warn, from obtaing whit." e ey. . TO SIKH CHIEFSHIPs. A ee ee > @ Goverdhan Singh dutd a Singh,’ sot's "of the | ee i ae R4ja of Mani Majra, (38) Ran? Rattan Katir ; (4) ae | , surdar Gulab pingh. of Thancfar ? and (5). Bhpi Se oe z | Bassawa Sthgh ; and tltese ene it will be von-» 5 ® - ° ® 2 g venient to ‘consider separatdly. cB og 2 28 Be =" »s ; ° e e e 2. "Bhai Lal Singh brought forward the» Te severaj claims. - Bhai Lal Singh. ° same ¢ agumgnts "which, he had before, used, that @ was gentrally acknowledgéd to be their tights. aa = deelaration of Gina Ram Dis tt) the effect ceo at the Bhaikiéns should adhere, é the Khatri, . - rule of inhetitance and exclude womer, was a» i favention easy to make, vand, of course, diffiéult to disprove, were at rot thet Bhai Bal Singh him- Do delf had allowed on a former, Dedasion the right’ of 9 2% ® ° > women to inherit.” : ° : rs e *5 - 6) ° Gav erdhan ‘Singh and Aman Singh, the situa Majra - sons *of the lk: dja, Of Mani Majea, ok; timed, tle ougle * ‘ . = thejy moter a Chand Jxour, the rae : daughter of Rani Bhighsyi dnd produce, i support, ‘will oe toshaye béen exeeuted in* fete . favor, but to which there were no witnessessexcept her own officials, s being” ‘stated ce chief fliket ce — | gy »® . > } : a . + ® 5 Tnhe se RW OR INHERITANCE ‘ = eS _ to aff us ‘signatiuif> to the dédcument and thus fe incur the avrath of' the’ powerful Lal Singh. It ve S \ Was, “moreover, ndtorions that the, Kéni‘had long. ‘ - the Government mght have tivated the : Lhe ie Sf. =e overnprent, > 4 estate as ah escheat without improprieby. NO 6 oo: | sone of the elaims ‘was good in law. .Bha?. Lai > ee Singh, as a ‘collateral, was nos entitled to sucebed. ? . The a Majra aot were sond ef diltagtiten , . though whom the right to’ stecessions. does, not pass. Réni Rattait Kour had no claim throygh her , pant fie havingy didd in the iiif-tinee, “Of Vis oe 8 father. Gulab Singh” of Thanesar claimed fra ugh ° - his wife, who had no lal 0 puctecd her diother : ee reg and Basawa Sineh was, ass g collatergls | im thé same : = , " pésition as Biiinehcadlt anise: he had ; signed “58 a document by which he relinquished Rll claim + to the Kakrila estate, in’ "favor of Laf Sing oh, The ee ae Government hal, however, no ach to’*take the» . estate, and in | Sanany +1819, the® Governdr General decided that: i sere ales : 8 ° > 2 ° é ie me s 2 a eg to preserve the terr’gory of Kakrala undiv ided, as well ‘as to continue it in the family %0 which it has hither to Bolonvad, ate » “to prevent its being merged in’ the possessions " of another family 5 > “of the elder maivied daughter of tt) late Karam Singh*in (vor of 2 sf the younger deughter or [per CRU dren: the Gov ernow General in eouncyl »° : : = ig pleased to resolve tha? the cRiefst nipe®ire ~prritory of Kakrala ‘shall “devélve on tha représentative he® of the late Bha’ Lal Singh, the . ie existing head ofsthe ‘rouse @f which Kar rqm Singh was a*mem Sela . os e Oe ee 24. dhe claim ,of Rani * ‘Rattan Kour * was 4 widdw — avhose husband, has died during "the life-w-o? not, as the preceding case has. sticaa. alloty ed, and Che. father bts 2 ‘Oc claus e it may be cons sidered as an Finvatiabi® yale, against : »” 2 5 = a a —> g : > > : = > Dio, 5 oe, ©e e OF INHERITANCE es LAM 3 ; : = | —_ : , which "Retttan Kour eens srodice no precedent, | a , that a “Wwidew Whose husband has hed during the : e = aos like- tifhe of his finer has né claim whatever to. a” 6 Sinherit. One eplebrated: Precedent did, honeees Be es “ exist! ngusely Mai Sadia Kor Kawlene whose & : ot case wal] he denwantes referred to, but which was « oe of ae exceptfonal a nature thateit is valueless as ao oe ptovt tic.ot dishfoulng at custome oR | @ o ( ‘ ( ° @« ® { The right of the * "25." “Although the rysht of the widow te - widow consttintly re- = fused, and in pracigce : she only succeded tthew no brother or eee nephew of the hishqud played to extst in fatnilies ia which it ae snost . existed, inkteeif- was genchdllytadjuittel, and can even be =. po stindcions)y denied, yet {t i¥ not to be SC unpeee Q 3 thit, in rwde times, when mjslit was right, women - s° were able té Sgtam their eine with any oréat : ‘ “success To 20 bey ond the, Phalician family, to : ‘ athe Sikh Terese: in th ‘Cis- Satlej States, it will ce be found that, We, prac tices sn the generality ef ug sages ie which - the widow cucceeded, dt was from oe a oe -flilure gf brothers or nephews of her husband, s eand ghat wherp ee ex! ‘sted, ‘they succeedeti Co the is in ® -. *prefitlice ef the widey. The ‘qustom “of , karewa e mariage, df course, eh¢efly aceortnts for this, « the i= : . brofher inherititg ilot from — the deceased, but | =e throtigh the ewitlow! Phone. married and Ww ho Ne had 10 power to Srevent his thus obtainih's posses- e « —: : Sa “sion of ‘the wPpert§. ¢ : : : Ew ® oe € j : Se . e . é ¥ c ~ ‘ey @ e @ € eo *TO SIKH CHIEFSHIPS. pao 4 oF ) > -— (a) “On the Neat ath of M hardy ya Khatak ‘Singh , Cases in om the eo of Lahore and his son Nao- N ial Sidgh, the wi : dee ut gfe aie sof the former, Rani Chand Kour, was°a clat ma aie mie , for the thront, and hey’ right tag adipittea py a firma. >, large and powerfal partly in fiegStinte,stritht rap” j Liayore, > | ‘standing the’ eee of several ‘reputed. ehildrer > of Mahavaja Ran nt Singh. Prince Nao-Nihé} § sjneh oe died the day « after iis fs father’ previous to Ri « iistel. sf se lation as Maharaja, so tilat his widow Sahiy Hour’ | was unable to put» iprw atd any “personal clgim, 3 se though her declarajion,s float she wes “nitenant, aie” ; once invatidatéd the clatmoo! Rant Chand Kour to ; ne more on the regency, "since, if a son yere birn ae tos Rani Sahib Kour,. "he would ng burally bé the , 5 © ae heir to the thre me There e can still be nd doubt™ : that chad Prince, Sher Sen, eh bee the true son’of ; : Ranjit Singh, : ee e (6.) “Ma Sad ida Kour “yas the. widow? of Si atten ther” foe | dé Gilvbuksh Siveh Kanhgyh~ who died in Ridin CEU 2 ee hi fetime of His father Jal Singhs chief of the great ee ppedieracy whieh mle the yor tthe portion of >. ihe Bari Desh, ; i haisheand gas “kifled in 1784, ~ : ae . leaving no ) male sue, and | bis sfatlier then divided : fe 2 the whole stato, ‘including | the jagi ine. of Gurpyk sh ~ “) | Yh a Jj? 2 — =: ae oa : = é > . , : » . ® e ;ace < é « < owe. e Sc 6 TA OF oe < ¢ < oe oe Si ingb, over which the latter hev éy, appears to have Sa “«”. had arty cabs absblute contrel, «by chundeband, OF : ae | x gqually between the issue of wives: * Mii Sadda <* as Kour, on {he death of J a ‘Singh i in 1796, succeeded = to th ifale of the estate, which ma «chigasatuien as ‘. : : her huskantl's dane. and subsequently fo HIS the : entexe nemaipd er of her fathers irf- -law’'s peoperty, ee ¢ ‘ Ss whieh: hed beea made‘ over fo his yourtger sons é S "'W idhdn,Singh and Bhag Sipeh. ) - e, £ : e ‘ \ o§ « / bY The question of the “Tks perce of tke nates “of Mai Sadda mature of Mar*Sadda « ALOUT § te eC of the : Pa: cstajee kas OUL'S § possession of f the Katheya territory’ hds Lately ‘been re-opened © by Shihdeo Sing.« lately assunced putea interest from a claim € € ¥ ‘ adv: anced ¢ wes pee etae Shanice Singh, con‘of the > fF ,@ p : a ate Mahéy rj a, Shei Singh of Lahora, Sadda Kour « ® 6 a a < “had one daughter, peas Kou t, merried to ° Maharaja Ranjit Sing, ‘and, of ‘this union, ‘Sher ‘ : Singh was the reputted iSsue. “tht claim of Shahag Singh cig er lands ld by his father, who _ Prat i taslhcns by gift, or inheritance { from Mai Sadda, a e qr @ — our, his evand-mothér, or trough ms eentlict © eri 4 ae = des < : Mehtab Kour- vee estates cortld not so devolve according to Sikh ] lasy. Sadda Kour obtained them « on her father-in- laws death, not By right, for her oha ad. left two. other, sops his. laviful’ Heine. but Jae ‘« _becanse she ! (vas au woman of the greates st courage << € « « ‘ cet : ‘ % husband had‘diéd i ig the lifétime of his Sither, whe ~ &TO se CHIEFSHTIPs, } nfed- , eracy desired her fog theiy eader, while - oe and ability, and dies chiek: > re the Kanheys CO thers-inclaw were feeble anil Pane to oppose he But Sadda Kour lad 0s, spower ne bequenth, oe estates, nox could her daughter) gon’ inherst thera from her, as ‘there is no succession in the =f fer male | D line, no» could he ithevit them from his other, was incompetent td ‘bpld them, and>As a matter “of *, gact never did hold them. The question ‘oP sudces: who » sion in the female line ‘will be rveferr al tos at ereater» length hereafter, . oS -* ) > > » = ee ) 9 9 a ’ (¢) Rani Dya Kour and Sukbyin were the svidows oY Sirdar Bhagain Singh of Didlghar, who died in 1812 without issue. The actate which was. worth nearly a takh of rIZpEPs a ea between ‘the, widows, who held it till their » > b > , seath, 2 > , , 2 ‘ : . -. (d.) The chietship’ of Amb: ila, was one of the most’ ‘impbrt ant of those hed zs wislows ‘South of? the Sdtlej, "and vas worth nglaly Rs.60, 900 a? year, Sirdat Girhuksh ‘wear, WAS “divided = 3 with many * subordinate ye Singh died 1 Ss 1783, iG saving ‘ngitHer pane. brothers , por nephews. His vtidow Dyg itu succeeded. to the. estate, whith she held tajl her death i in? ee > when. it lapsed 6 eqoeentient am > aoe a» > > ? eae y ee > 7 a) > > > > a > —s > ’ > a) pS @ ee > . Te 2 > D-silghai > > > > > > ibaa = > Re > 8 QD ® > > a rth bala , a, ? ’ > s > d om > > > ° . °: eee ; 3 « fe . /. « LAW OF INHERITANCE on Bi . * (e) Rani N and K our, ful widow of Sird4r on ” . Jaimal Singh, stiecoedel ito: ‘the es -her hus- et \ bend, ‘who-died i in 1817 " thous 2 malecssue. Guldb « y* : Singh 1, 2 ukering bfothen, of, gaimal ‘singh, was set aside in Paton of the. widow: though the asserted illegitimacy of his birth influenced the devision of the Governme ent. He how ever § sul échodled eV entually “1, s ec , @ 29 © ~~ <°to a sreszt *partref his bréther’ fl possessions; and, on. ie death Of Nand Kour in ,. 835, to the share held 7 \ «, @ « i ae -, by her. ‘ e q ¢ @- «€. ff « & « < : (¢.) Mai Bya Kour, g suceceded d ; ‘ d » ° \ 3 3 e 9 = exclusion of her’ ‘twé ee She ned in 1836, and he widows. the » death of’ ie 4st, tory escheated to Govertitnont oo > e a ’ Q a > + > b 2 Chand Kour, in 1850,. the’ at > > 3 Sirdar ?Bhig Singh, Sing, left four sods, only bne of whem, Baj Singh, the? brother sof "Bhan nga left ‘iasu®, Jamiyat Singh, who + shieceadedss Le the , yar. Mi ~ ee ain . anole estate, botlf of his father and his, unclesy , \ “to the exclusior 1 of his urcles’ yoaxdows. 7 ; > > : a — : ap D : ».»-9 , > >, es > c ? > (g.)» The three widows of Sinlar-Sadda Singh, Raj Kour, Hukm Koyr a and Sukha,} succeeded to the estate of their he&band, who had ,aPP ortioned > = among theng during hie lifetima. male reldtive was a’ “nephew, who made no cloim aut when Rdj Kour died in fo at his uncle’s death ; 4 894, the Government allowed’ him to sugcesd > ‘ > a J 9 her shire. 8 ee 5 , ) > > > : ° e > : 3 oe >? - UT. \° Mai Dharmoh, of Sclimpir, sxceeedel hey-fagband, who léft to > 9 » near male telati ion. i) > » . > > eed. *ySirdérni 3 Jousa gucteeded ther husband, ” Bhag sii oh} in the chiefship,, no brother or Eephere of the Sirdar ee succeded and on the . Tis, neares st, ‘yidow qf Hantir ,bingh 4} ‘ . Y ° ? => 2 rs a9 >, > > o ,» 3 > > > , . és ’ te 9 =» Dd; Py noi a, ai x 2 d ’ “om ? > ~~. ~ > >. > & > @ a a b, ” ae, ’ 2 Helium yw’. . ie > 3s oo > > d 2 2 See See 7 Balchappay’, > > >qe aa eS nr ean eh ee LAW OF INHERITANCE : ‘ idee OGG ie ") * Sirddr aL Psi Kourt subbecded her hus- ee band, Dulcha Sing hose. only near male relation x = . Was an illegi fi ce aephew; cise daliffed from eos esuccession., oes a ce 824 . = ¢ a SG eae Se See ae Mustaptabad. Cae The S$arié« was the oaee with Sirdérni « Gowra, qidowo f Mehtab Singh gf Mustaphabid. ; ie ee ; . om hy: Sirdar ‘Dharina Sjngh of Firozptix died os ‘in TS19s ‘leaving a widow, TAchinan Kour, who “78 suceeed Nl to the estate, althowgh the deceased chiei ‘ _ had both brothers and ntpkews. One of the tactep, Ss - » Bha od] Singh, duting" Ter Ase on pilgrimage, sin 1993, saized the terrjtory; but he was foreed by 5 om @ « the Tah ore Mabérdja, ate the i in stance of the British ig : “authorities, _ 10 give it up : the Ma altrdia, acknow- 3 ficine tie. complete rig ht of theewiow. who held « possession till her,dea ath én isis. e «6 « > = ox “albgh the Widing to . ee In ‘addition to ‘the cages given alfove, in nal Senta A : hich widows “have ssucceed sl to their husbands snd het state, yeferenee mayy ‘be mad le to the families of es Fatt Khin, Tiret Saéhabad, oo Babidl, and * ‘Nilveh, ineall of which eke WiclOWs OF < “widows s Have ae c inherited, failing sdBs is, brothers or nephews of the ‘ = deceased chief. A e = « c le ei . 2 aa hy tl a a? © ape es hig hewid ie ‘Thé Instances ‘in which, the wido €TO set CHIEFSHIPS, been passed over i 1) favor of relations of” ‘tho,h widow hastcei mp seded %y relatio ions band are .so humerous, hoki among the singl thd plsband, Dr, ,and Malwa ‘Sikhs,’ that is is “pot necessary: toe <2 : Ss more than, ndte a few "ofythent Supgrs Sess ion of» , ® 2 3 the> widow. , was’ the zal, apd er suche a sion the 2 » » . > » exception, Oar an " : 2 »?. . > . , 9 ? ? me \e Pedder oe Cae Sirddr Nari Singh Bhang “f waswycreede SS ae = >> 2 @ : by’ his brother Jhe tithe Singh, a he again by? ° >, \ Se) his brother Ganda, Singh though both chtef: S aad e » > n left widows, s se ae os —@ > CO 4 , ? 9 > = : » * ®? } ? > (6.) Sirdar J assa Sick SPhluwalia, lef? a >», daughter gand two " Widows but a, distant cougin = —_ : @ “me itherited the egtate. 3 eS ee > rd 0 “>? . Saye . Qs 1” Te ; oe Six rday ‘Mehtti ib of Sinch Dulehwa ula. left a dee i, two widows, but his, bAthe? Gulab Singh succéeded ae a eo 9 in mi; ‘ = 4 > 2.8 » 8 % 8 ; % ° oe = yo : ; “ r 2% >», (d@) Sirdir Kear Shwgh Faiz allah fai = ics . ae Dd >. we “ 7 ee : > dying , witout male “issue, a stice eeded by his. , ® O a” , a : o a > » > nephews to o the% ex clusion of the widow. ; 2 ° os or 7 : S53 . d . > > > ® > ° > 1 Which brethers > $2.8 ° » > ain » prefe rence to aa , But the mainly of case 8 Ii va have obtaiited, or appedree to « me 3 f 6 Wea ea Aaa the wadow. Hye 5 thos 6 in svhieh se Yas been ae 2 D> s emarrid py chadlar dit ina, "her power by er te, pro- a : - > a Oo " ; ps 2 : 4,; e a. ( ae = ee ak perty naturally ceasin a; but her wehts as the legal 2 fe *. heir nevertheless being acknowledged. = : oye! Oh 2 ag « cs via muccession of Uf 28: The joint succession of widows is not, 2 as hy asly engans, ap invasiibfe rule. ,Many" instances ; oe aan be quoted,‘ stich as Didlghar, Dhanoura, ee Childundi, Maistaphabaé and Nity al, in which éhe* oe estate, fas “beva divided bé&tween thet wic6ws. In oes athers alte has' gone to the hia ter witlow alone, the _ « Caron see entiyin, a \ mtintdhgnee, : : : € 4% ‘ < ‘ << a: ea Ege e Rut a division haying*taken place betweelt thes ee WMO 5 ob the , death of one, the other has no : ee claim to wcceed to hey. shage, ‘which r everts to the ae a2 = ¢ next of kines f. the hushane 4 in the male line, if any 3 “exist, or, in default, lapses to thepatamount power. fs - : oe. at re Detian arie ae ‘The case of the Diz siete estates will illustrate ae this as well perhaps: as any other. ve © ; ¢ €% e o ‘ aS a. : 2 Cs. Sirdar Bhagy ap Sigh left two widows, Dya, 3 2 * Kour and Sukhdn, ‘Yeut. ei son, brotler or : ° us neplfew. The Gov eed ee to make un oe : arrangement by whsch the elder widow, Dya K.our, — Bhowd feta the estate, the younger receiving an : * allowance ther afr om. wut Uliis compxontise Sukhgn € € 2 t as eg #2 ft ¢ ac eee = € ) ° « LAW OF INHERITANCE € ey refilsed, and, in 1817, the esiate was divided. “between thela? In 1828 os aA Kout ae and =NO SIKH CHIEFSHIFS, , ee ose ae t Sukhan ‘immedititely claimed to succeet, Haid 2 <~ => she agreed, in 1817, to. allchv” the estate $6: remaiy ie ae | » undivided, site might possibly have’ had some pre , ay tension to suce Heed, there’ heiug no os male ee ; es ) o9 9D D9 but» there was nb Neda ot cain as aeainst Mies Ac : Se right of the’ paramount power to resume a jaye “estate held by a separated heirless. widow, and, the Sees share Of "Dya Kou was’? acdprdingly” rediimed > a ae , \ > . Government. \ o fee aD , > oO ~y ae a . at ; > Oo > iG) > 29. One case of an etitirely exception edits nes case of Ga. nowlt, %n which one es hae be referred, tO. in whiel or ay From succeeded to the share iat andiios® Sitdir ainda 2 Singh, of’ Ganowli, huving ’ no child | by his , wife nes Salchan, contemplated ¢ second marri iage,, which, , ries coming to her’ knowledge, » she’ proposed that he e should marry her fullsigter Raion, which he acgord~ , idly did Garde Singh died $n*1791, and thetwo ae ioe *held the estatesint ea til? the death of, o Sulchan, when Raisa retainesl , thosandivtied pro- , & S perty, which consisted of Sour villages depeztdant ae on the, Chichro wi? chief, 78 ieee » y . > » > 9 > e 2 Ps , » > a 2 . Ss >= _? This case stands almost alono, and the reasons: , > » > » for the sitter succeeding the sister ane quite Intel- lig gible, hide the principle "is nes gener rally allowed. »The enly other’ ca se in sch is that of? * > - 3oc: ee AW OF IN ERID ANSE ae a e 2: ° i oer: Syngh, wliere, on the déath’* of Sirdar Fatah > 4 oo ee deagh. On the. other hand, +Mfa ae ue niumerdus fo es «in sta wfces showing that « the rivh¢ of one widow does - *° “Sndt epass *to another. Bat 3 Anskour of Pattidla ——" fe received, an “estate gf Rs. 5100, 000, which on her - death on “again included i in the State lands, thou oh. widows or tthe Mahi’ dja. sieved: «The ae ; sex é ands is also in Dam , Ray Kour and Ram ‘ — : Kow, the widdws of Sirdé, BhagelGingh, succeeded & € € ae ehim, dnd‘after a Yong ‘qharrel, a fartition of the * é ‘ estate was ‘madechetween, ¢ chem, “through the neigh- . = bouring chiefs. - a KourQied soon after, ‘and, in e é se 1909 , «Mahirdja* ¥ Ranjit Sitgh took her share’ as G oe , . 4 ‘ d < é : ean ae = Oe ee s @ ~ . «J ¢ . Lhe Gener j. prin Cy 89 | f < : Ce herule , er the* @ixhs was thaf a«séperated crpl le as gate stot OU tS; ey the Sik ° ‘ portion of a » Hlomaingdescends tq the htirg of the : / : person last"in possessions; for, the rhroment an estate a 3 ; becdmes Sep arated. ‘each portion scene the - + “© character of a separte domaim, and pk “ends to its ‘ e nearest male ‘heit failing whbm, 4a pets to the ¢ ¢ oS “ supreme ober < y other i : tec 2? ee ee ee ot er rule yrould snanifostly 3Ho SERGE CHIENSEIPS; §, aj i ’ > 2 . » be most inconyerien?, caper ally in a Side whére , . Ls there weré many al vere ab the amount of tern. | es tory g eratiualhy vesting in the “widow longest 1 sut- > a viving , would’ probably éxo0ed one held by: the? a6 real head of thefamily» - yap ee ae s » 3d ‘ = > : Z > : > S- > = 30s” Daughtgrs or their —o were incom. _ Daught ors Wal their assue were 2} COMP Le » petent, « Se neo ‘to an estate, ever in deofqilp eb ee ciedss | BY ; > > i : 7 Bi oe a - > 8 séns, widow, brothers) pr nephews. » The reason ol” o> \ “this i is that a ert = ,marpied ipynediatelyon her d arriving at the’ age ee puberty, She is fren” Com. *5 > dered 40 have severed’ al? conne Si pn wit father’s family, and rs be only aMied to thy -husband, trom Bl ote ‘alone she is gble*to inherit. ; a x Scar cely a sin Re instance tan be sileved through. ” out the whole> of, the Sikh States, i which io: 9 female line has succee: ed % ‘0 chiefships or landed o: | ‘property, Were guch a practibe to prévail, estatés i ~. woulds pass “into, the possession of other oe . » and the claims of elder daughters ond ergnd- -child- >, . z ren‘ would be likely to Reuperseded | by those Of < : younger daughter s antl thejd dffspring. ea oe . z : : , ae ’ : > : » > = bP a eg ee The Kakrala case has * beep commmertte oe fee Pe Sir 8 m dgughter ang her sons at some loyeth, from, Vy hich it appeared that ‘on the Weic Weck ditodlouad: death of? Mai *Bhabbari, leavtne three dayghters > » K G ke a L & 2 » . ; oO 2 . 9 cise Be and two grandsons? these? were al» yassed over ip . a: ; » : 42 se ~~ y —— ® : " -deracy ic EA OF DenERTTANye . favor of Gai Pertab Singh, tite ‘elder son‘of Bhai TAL Singh of Kythal, # cousinof Mai Bhdgbari’s e 6 f , | " husbadid. e : ‘, oe Z . ; @ by e@ ¢ gindar: aoe Singhs ee Kaptirthala, left a e ® asics marzio to Sirdar Mohr Singly, of Fataha- had, who, on his father-in-law’s d 2 without male: . isswfes claimedwhé property through kis yefe, but € © "the agin was “distllowed 9 ithe estate went » a desecndant on thé fdmale side becoming possess- ed se an antabn, but are was by force, not. by ior example: ,J odh¥ Sitch, ovandson of Rani »Rajindar, the daughter of, Sirdar Bhxtnia Sick of Pattidla, isurped her posseastons,’ solder the n for some months, wher - was murderéd,, ivhtful fete Chtix Mal brather of Raz Rajindar's husband, re > > » e 2 > a1, The yight 08 option, So far as it might confer on the person ‘adopted, ( ‘pdlak or potrela ) P a claim to inherit, a’ chiefship or ,estate, is not» all lowed, either among ta anit of Mélva Sikhs. to perpetuate The Britis Government, a ipiring the more impordynt families? has granted to certain of them: thie wight of adoption, bpt thia is amew Bolt not before acknowledged., Bus, nevertheless, instances ave occurred of otfiefa without mate issue, adopting heits, who Dave beon permitted $0 su but these cases, like J hand Singh Bhingi, ie D ) nb SIKH CHIEFSHIPS. “‘Sirdr Sadda. Sinch, me haria, lathe only daughter, . married to Sofi ex Singh, the Hig Priest of ‘the: Sikhs, yet, on Salida Singh’s deals, his grandson, Sodi Uttam Ringh, vainly endeaxpur- ” Ono or two daStances there may jhave been, of Y ® a > ) ) ae 19.2 - Sit 3» ? d >? : > “> &>D J Puijghas ee RS } , eed P a y ) > > > LED No legitimaty sac? > cession on thé female side, though there may Dope Gen cecastonal . » pasurpetio ns. oe ae = o e > > Le » 2 > eo ae S = ® ® ) eo A > > > s > > @ Adoptior . > » o e® > oe) 3 ‘ ® a2 , ay 2 Adoption ts got allowed us confirming — any right to yucceed ee tq a cluefship, > > » )= C1 The Dee VO lopited : son of Sirdir Héra Singh, and Nar Singh, oO «4 fe ° oO 2 = os | cae Jhamyari, the adox. al § n of Sirdar | SAwal Singh, 2 C S.° . LY c 1 4° eres « whd, with the. sanction f the Gurmate, the Sikh C ¢ : O¢ e C . : Pen ve nationd) ny suececded. Oe all thet chief's < CC ¢ : ¢ wee G € SS oe -OStates, “belong y tie early day of Sikh history, oe C whew the ai was no paramount p pwer to ‘claim the. & * = “c C aC € C c ( heat | ( 5 escneat. « u -wt og ce « ( \ ; ee i. There i , howes rey, no‘nstance of inheritance i ( ( _ } JO \y a mG pe ry" Er ~ { F 4 TD - : Bk Aeba c . by the. caves son of a widow. ‘Rani Blidgbari ¢ ¢ ae Se P : eo ae ar to adagit 1, OF die adopt, Amar Singh, the son, CN @ G vir Six oh fe Mani Majra, but her m ¢ s Ql. « 3 19 @ S 2.3 : J oi = n Raced NOLL sy 4 . a : oe to be ifivalid, and, in fhe subsequent c zm Q © , : lieregarded. — pod © t (=) a bead 2 sO a% Oo = = o~ hadeed aA a ad — r™ a ‘on } — CD oO CX THTeek » QO od § a j \ inherit was , refused, a \ Government. | » : 5 rae > ; > at > : a That atloption was not, is abungdtatly proyed by the >, fell tq. bgth fhe British, Gover 9 ge a Ran njit» Sinch, n .. of W: ? > WE pes goes Agate d > d fo Cnt tt adovnte. > » > » > e >, 2 ’ 8 ° = oe Dao Qip Be ee 8 oe AA ti a OZ. OLF TLE gs Lawrence >, WH1ltINe JOH, OVD Ag opinion of Sir ; — LUWrence and ® i TT ; Be { yL Li) SMUT AT i iF : if ip td LALA - J > > 2 > » v > > va J ha Nha yf ( “hilound1 tha al Aaat mH ne izal OF VUNDMOUNGI, twOe O1dest in‘ e w y ‘ we - : : § « “ / ee ce CC Se Tw OF INDERITAN OE € ot eu « villag op for a lad of her adoption ; and Rani < pee _dukhén of Di‘ ilgher s “i yliole ‘thoughts are turned: = : ‘(to obtaining a siall ° eversion ‘to ‘her brothers. re eRe. Sirdir of, Ripa, j is also bent upon making el: ie interest: for the. sop. of his daughters All these . -% “ facts @6 to prove, not only that the Hinds Jaws of n€ "ai fheritance } have not been acted upen, uf that << «the chiefs are’ Ww al aware 0! W hat has been the es practise.” ne Go t | «im ea. c si e, ( ( q) Tn e e ee way, Cxptain Murray, writing t ae Cc c ree adsstion of “he younger, son of Sirdar A jit Re aS Singh of Ladwa by the wittuw oft Sirdar Duleha ae Singh of Rudour, ‘his grandmother,, s says—‘ Such - a “an adoption may hoid |g 2006! -acéording to, the : *‘ Shasters, but, im my } judgment, they are more oe apylicable to private and personal property | thax « to public Sirderis, and thi general practice of the “¢ ‘ oe « # countrs favors bane in gn. « Were the Muham- ’ 5 cS mada and ‘Iiindu § “aws of Inhetitance as in “Gul cated by the Shai and Mitdcsharah" to be nar de the rule for cur enidance, very fow, if ar ys _ S08 the many principalities would® remain entire: 4 ae “and a common digtribution ' of landed (property: ; ‘would, bedome uni¥ersal, to the destruction of f o( ee JS a &stabes and annihilation of the chiefs,” ¢ t ee ¢ : c C ( : C ( f : ‘ C \ Gel et «w SIKH CHIEFSHIDS. , oe a » A ’ : 2 ? > The * recognition of the adoption of Fe y ‘daugh- | »’ o> a yea ’ 5 ae ter’s son Was perused to, tha. Sindégni of Rudour, Mg eae 2! 7 >” =P ¢ , and, on “her “nag ih 18}8, the es lap8ed rto ) ; veo Government. or ree , ie . »>? a > oo »» 2 > ae »» 2 a a a ° o d 2 AS oO: Th vere have been marty ‘doadbts. expressed Inmartraracy. An eltegeiimagic son aS*to the extent 40 which illegitimacy bars shicces- 7 Rae cl athe eases to succeed, o sion amp the Silhsy but afters carefulscons' déya-. , Bo») ® tion of the éugtoms of ne principal fhmilies, it mayo é “be laid down as a geréral and yadoubted rale shat o> | ie) o>. an illegitimate sail has no claim whatgv er AS againsh he a fe aed son. Ie wil] be entized to nainte- os nance from the estate, hut to eons roy Nor, " avhere no legitinaate soe exists, tos ae Fight of the illegitimate sojt been alléwed ; but ae imberitance, i has yassed to the Widow, sthe, brother or the nephesy, 3 or has lapsed ; to the Jaxamhouret power, and this principle has been ‘maintained , by the » Derich 4 Govérfiment itself. mae o ce , a ; : oe a3 a? : . Phe late Viceroy, Si John Payyrency — sg eenien te te @Vicfroy in the ’ Kaptrtholla case, »% ih May 1853, m *the Ahly falia case, whic# i‘ DAS ine subject of illegiti- of MACY. lately on wgain betore Government, took a spme- oa ¥ od 2 y : » shat different view of the questidn., ns | D 9 > y ”, > ’ 9 @ > 6 9 ® ) > ; ‘ Re U4 is asserted, he writes; c by: the present «Raja tHtat/ both his brothers ar e iedit imate ; that\ = 6. ss ; ‘ 4 C bA de « . LAW OF mie a: ; € ‘their “Mother was a a slave ‘girl, and ‘that by e oO oH s, fine Hundt law thoy wouldenot inherit. These : < at uments the opite {Yo ‘ommissiene! doe§ not con-, =e < sidex to be tenable. ‘ Ina 4. caste so low in the SOCl- : oe are scafe As thats of the Ab uwalias family, ‘bastardy ” would. never a ‘ sufficient causé for ce “fs cc agide the rights of male childwcis. . The aeremony oo amaq tf of iaur! lage cam@ng &ll thy farious rates “which wa Sarre tebe found among theSik h persuasion, is but — ently regardeés The mehe clact of a chaddar. * dalng Diiowine a sheet), over a female is uae ae ee sal] Con hed to be ace my nists acknowledgment : en st sa hatin has taken place.” te : : oe : a SE fact that"the fnarri age caremony among ye ° the Sikhs was often of go simpheé cha ‘acter, and SO : easily performed, is a apron areas again st the at Claims of the i issue ‘ef a fvoman With whom no such ‘ coremohy can be proved So. have been per’Srmed. we ‘ ' Ot has been before shown _that the chaddarddlna, ; cf " faarriage was a "acoiied by all the Ménjha and or ¢ Malia Sikhs as amphysuflicient ¢ Oive ‘the tvoman a oon the full status of a wife, and to legitimatizé her _ «© issue, who sugeebd equally ewith the issue of thy orthodox matri iage ; that tht éhief reigrting families ce the pe to- aA are sprang -~ chagdar- 4\ > TO'SIKH CHIEFS! been abivdeed rately by the Phetdn hayes, for the simple reason that the af has granted td tham the ri ant prone Government __ adoptien, aild 1 has. enjoined the rule of primogeniture and. the exclusion of miles froma the suceession. . bd en ? Bhe kore: ba mar- Hage, which’ transferred une iis of “the widow to the next fuera brother, has® consequgytly J >" > . ~ becomé unnecessary, ds the mee aioe fativilies, » i» iss sa now, no fonaeteuatite right. , S y ° » » Dd : 34. There are degréps even in peas ‘and an illegitimate son Born. of ghe mothay m might have: preferential rights to a,son born Uf ampothey: “Two “ases maf be ante caeDles of this : Sirdar Bhanga Singh ‘of Thanesar left a sén, ‘Sahil Sinak, born, of a slave di, Who» W sequence of his illeg gitJmacy, ineligible to succeed ag declared, in cops épnjointly with his legitima te brather. , He 0 ° Te iteqitimacy, howe- ver, gs of different hinds? and some tllegt- timate” children are held tts more consi- derat:mjan others. ® recelved, however, a ptovision of nine *and a , » half villages, esata to his som Bishast ) + ; Singh. ' : > o> 9 3 » : fe ? Sirdar 2 ania Singk of, Rudhowur was, suc deeded by ‘his, widow, his nephew “Dasthdha, Singh beitg erie c. the issue, of a woman »- —_ husb&nd was living, and wha had eloped r been fofcibly abducteti ne Sirdérl Eye. Singh. NS‘waarmee © ——— ae ns On thefteath of al Kour the Widow, Dasundha Ms * _Bhngh put: forward We ; claim, alleging that he did ° ‘got obtain the egt Shee eefon the death oi Sirdar. oo 2 + Daleht Singh, : as widow had prior _gights to : : uterine® ' htothers aud ney hews, bué his claim-+was altogether, eliSallowed ; and the chiefs ‘of ae Le < Nabha, Thing and Kythal, whese opinion was” < exe a «asked by ‘Captain ‘Murkay, * 1827, decfaréd that “st “She 8 Singh of Thanesar wis of better blood than = ‘ Dafvindha Singh* of Rutlhowy, «as gbeing born of a | | gufl yt wastat least aha property of her. master, — . while: Dasuntie's ‘Singh weemerely thfe isshe of an ' : -. adulterdts, Seon See : | ; a ae SI Bs ; Tlefs claint Was biought forward again, in : ¢ 1937, by Fatah Singh, the sontof/ Dasiedic Singh, : who had died, anél wis aan réjected as PIepee: € terpys. . The opinion of Me chiefs was again asked; ‘ ' pnd tifey were unanimduse in condemninge Li e “favoring? Patate Singh F claims. Hyen ‘the ‘ aged : “widow of Sirddr Bkedwel Singht who “might Ve supposed to desire ‘ the” estate to rerfiain, inethe ‘ family, rote to Sir George Glérketo say that shex considered thle Britjsh .Goverument tite e only het a‘ to Rudhoup’ and toe thp estate that she herself a A possessed; but that, in. the ey ent of the Supreme € ef ° => & € 4 « £ « ( ‘ e © t . € ; ='@ A «| « ° e « e “ ‘ “+ \ Pattistar ‘alone. for jnterésted. reasons of 2 own, ‘ L&‘ . > » ia TO SIKH CHIEFSHIPS. , os gt iy & > 4: os Government relfnqytshing ie rights in a ndhotr. J oy aa >= 2) 2 > De, 3 she was prepared to sclaim’ Cr Ain vingue’ of-hershils- 3° 27 77 > a rora, Sin chia te sly : : » band’s sttpretaacy ¢ over alsa 1 and that, pn Her demise, sheuld’ the. ‘Supreme Go-, i oe e ’ 7% ver’ priori still sénounce its right 40 Rudhdur and Chiloundi, 8he knew no heirs. but ‘the Be ab pene of Hardwir, or “whom, ‘in such, a Le gepey, she begged ‘that ‘thd “estittes might Ve, allowed 1. o9> ae ® - > a devolve. ' | Oi oe 2 ® a 35. Again, the son of a girl whe lad come __ he — dastinetion , which exists between P o 2. legit®nate and illegts AS a visein , to the ontet’s s, family, 2a, an atténdant dn taconcalviate. oe a on his first wife, is consider ed aslof higher position » , d eand aS entitled to oo” larger maintenance than ° > one porn of gn ordinary” slave git’, or of 4 Swidew. ar taken into the caldiiba, after the’ death of her fizst - husband. This aistivletio’ between senate ord ‘illegitimate ‘conteubinage” is perfectly ewolle: fon underg stood, dnd 4 sintilt practice » sprevail3 | mone , ) » the ruling Rajput houses, where the sons of women/ ’” > I who have cohne as virgins,, attendants oy. arbridte, Js , into the chief’? house, h have siecoeded to the iibone, and have in an ¥y cage been. “tre ated with fhe highest oe a > > > cohsiderafion. - Pie » 9 “s a » xg ® > >» 0 > > > > ‘ , 2 v The case of Bard: 36. "An interesting case with euerenve to the OU, adhe aie Basawey Singh, , ee Ot lebitimacy is that of Baidyyin, decideaA: ‘¢ | «LAW OF INHERITANCE er oN OF! ui (Government “ India iit. Marou 1828 | ee. Sif ‘dér J dassa Singh wy ia one of, shee brothers, who, oe ‘ had. divided the nettimbny ‘between’ thém. He « “s ees died, raving! 2 widows Sjhib Kout, and a con- «. cubine; ae ‘Koay, “bye whom * he had a@ son, : : wiaae Claim to suilentt was at once advanced. en * < The, mother, Khem Kour, did ihe ee to have eee «been ‘faartied to the shief, \though ‘she™ was of es sespactable birth. * She had been first. married 2 5 OL of the Satie, aaid* on hex hysband’s ,death fae a Chad lived’ for «15 yearge with , her parents... Mere , _—_— oF assa Singh ‘sa’ der, etn de aseshe was a near rela- a, tion, of his wife, ‘took her tothis home and had by ¢ ©. Se het a con, Basstyra, Singh. ; ar hg ¢ ® © or « ‘ - On tices death. of Jassa Sixch, in 4827, the ‘ | aurcuion of this, chfid qas permitted by the ede Political Agent. The brothers, ‘however, opposed it, aad of ice enquiries, which, satisfied the Agent , bof Bassawa Singh’s illegitimacy, ‘he recommended | that he should be set ‘ste, an allowancé bf Rs. = . ' 1,000° being assigned. si0 him bad, his neother: But they would not acceft this: artangement, dnd : _ «petitioned fhe Supreme Government, who instituted , : ‘enquities, and till thé year Tee the casé‘ remained under Enaestaa, ‘when it was finally | compro- oe Caised, by. the parties thenfselves,° Gf the‘ illegiti- rigorTO SIKH CHIEFSHIPs. Se macy ’of the eld ahere was no doubt,’ and? he fo was properly set aside. ° “NS marriage had ever taken place With,the mot.\er \ 3 the part of Tassg Singh, and this she Lad _perself ’ Aknowledacd. But on “this -accasion, was ais the _quivstion whether a ran could legally” "be marzied by the karewd, ceremony) sto a more distant relation’, than his brot%er’s’ widdw,, And the» chiefs were» eo their opinion ‘by direogion of the Agent Governor ” General ( 7th Fehnairy £93)» _ > 9 ; “This question € Again’ ‘inyolved {3 that of thé lega- lity among Sikhs of the re- cenot Mee cf widows.’ ? a » 5 x ? > > % 3 > The difference which exists "bet weft the harewa marriaga vith a , brother’ 8 widow, and the some ceremhonys or, “nore ‘strictly speaking, “chaddardalna, with any » other, womaa, ‘has been d > » 3 © alre dy explained ( par. 17 }. >: : 5 : =o » >» ® ° * oThe re-marri iage of “widows i is commion amongt the Sikhs not aléne , wit aybrother’s widoyy, bus generally, ,on aie death ‘of her husband, a Sikh _avidoww, whose idea’ of freedom,’are very dtiferen| » = a , The legalisy of the ri. -marriage of gid 6 ws. > 9 ftom tho of Bes Hindi cduntrywomen, niarries’ again, tlie: unan of her choice,” dnd’ her tight to do this, if theye be nd brotiter of her "late bushi, > > y .4 a . LAW OF INHERITANCE —. - \ dar alaty her, ds universally s ditt ‘ Sikh =. Ss Ce a widows, 's, marry, somegimes, ern a thire, husband, i a 4 this ifarriage pel ginfwn ‘ ‘as‘threwia. Notwith- , oe . Standing this ‘liberty allowed éo Sikh women, the af e ¢ Sati wasta common, practice of SS sdei” © oF sido. burnjng, was preva- practice. ‘ lent both je fhe Pangan proper and? i in the Cis- -_-* co Sata! States till; 1846, the last doatance liking the & og See widost of Sirdar Share Singh' Attdriwfiag who _ + “burnt kersclf, “with. her husvanwl’ s clothes, the diy cae _ , attey the battle of« Soptdon.\ “7 Tile q Mince staldeen - 37. Illegitimate yhildven have ogcasignally ut? hawe=®ever inherited ete et tiga Rael herited, sucks as J¥dh Singh AXalsia, Dewa Singh and Sikh days, Vid gwhen : « no legitimate claim- Charrat ‘Stheh gor Rupar, Bridh Sing oh Belaki, and. ant exisigd. a _ Gulab singh of Sofinti, Wut these instances occurred _ — ° oils early. days « of Sikh ascentiyicy, and-«where no eee coupons: claims of, widSws for brothers exésted to Cee such, supcegsion 5 and Bene: ‘generally affirmed ‘ that, difring the fast fifty of ey years, no salecon Ce ‘ ‘.* dédser ijlegitimate ioe. “has been permitted to ; —- ” Secceed {0 ant estate, seven where 10 legitimate : “yhale* ISSAC, brothers’ fiephews, of widows éxisted, on fe poeta that time, © “conjointly withhe or to: the : ‘ * prejudice of the Tegitimate heirs. & eg a ‘ es go hee, c* ° ,_ Transfer of . estates 38. ~The * custom of making a testamentary € antong) the Sikhs, Z disposition of property vrev ails: ’ d TO SIKH CHIEFSHIPS. ) , ) y--) to a limited extent ;,"but the power of the dtestatdy is strictly ‘limited, and asin » trary to the soknowledgod hal a Brother: whew ‘he had sons Jjving": leave all his” property to his young > S Not bere exer cised con- >of succession. Fox example, a testator could "aot beqheath his estate to ty but h eo aioli ae des with a a bare maintenancd' "So the olden eed thasths >: custom of primogenithye had not been adopted 4 Be oe his family, nor an inva¥iable rule of equal division. Should the fathor baye diSownell his son he may # »leave the estate to bjs geqitdson, but? have. these, denied.” or one of these, living, ~he cant Bequeath ae estates to any one elke. In the Cis-Saflej States *wills have been Sen : Sorted with the gadea- vour to stre engthen ap illegal or extrava gant claim, and they ive. it, Mose fisess béer successfully dis- pjutecy but the» powar to dis spose. of eee ereusrty by wall, o e > ; D * within certain > @ 9 5 no power to bequeath it by will, The tight ée the widai to. S limits, ‘has never been . @ a, 2: widow in possegaiin of a chiefship,has . Severdl times the eter attempt has been made, but in no tase with supcess, and her povver, indee g,only extends ower personal property, which, in’ Her lifetime,” “she ey, give to her daucltey: » G¥. 2 Z > 3 ieee @°: a » > in =) poe > : = = » } a a >» »D >? > », 2 ® = ; = ’ ey 2. y 2 > 2 > 3 3» D ® Se a ~ » > S > > a s » € > ry 2 ® = > @ => a » . . = the > q @ _.D. A widowyhas, in no » power to execute q will, or to dispose of req pros pee ty. ue coced, >»:4 LAW OF INHERITANCE < & « e* cf : ; e: ae x 4 : fe. 4 ces ae es fatlin jog wale issife, woe not fonts upon her any oa « e © ; a a } < : = i> cortaialy hae hot py Sikh. custom.’ e a @ Will cases. That AQ. Reveral cases of cons raohahiel ine rierest con- @ a & Raja Bhag Singh of Jhind in 1818. nected. with wills hav et ocduvred since the* British oe “connectioy with «the San ‘First in ordex jut ‘ _ time, iG that a Raja Bhtie or, Singh of Jhindy who Oe ; . qe $hied ine June 1813, eos three sons, Fatah Singh, o , wartab Singh and Melftab Ser A yeat ®efore =: ’ * hisleath he had deforjted with Siy D. Ochterlony, : : ihqAgent \f the Gov@rnor Genetal, js will, by : .. which heeft to ffis elder son Fatal a. Singh, only the ildquas of Sanetir and Bassiaa, anda réjuest to ide ‘nn ntent, that he nlight enjoy “the Jag f © e ¢ 4. ‘ ae ‘- Pl he he ld fi rom it for life. To Partab Singt the s € e ea ee foe e @ British ‘Gover» TO SIKH CHIEFSHIES. \s d ) 3 ) son, he léft the fort? and eS of Thind. aid Ludhiéna,’ » and declared fe ri the suecesser to hs , throne. *To the ¥ sotuntgest son se lett ie sdsge z Burdawali and dandéli,, 39> ‘ 9 » > Q 9 > o >a» » When the Raja first made knowh.the: provi- sions ofthis docuthent, to Sir D. Pickus, officer’ tried to ure? the claims ofthe élgest son, ° » id Secnval saen the Wieht of . brimogenitiire ° was much yegarded py 4 sh Binglich Government, bus the > Raje »replied that the foghey had therr icht ot nomi- nating his own successor antl bega fitting his lands as he ,pleased, and »that he. himself had, been the *second? son preferred e his fathes his assertion, which was alse inserted in the ‘iis of the will, apparently to pyove sve epstoin df his family, did pot express the whole truth. Ralja oe eng liy of Thind, who died in, 17899 had three sons, of whom Bhig Singh was corals the second, But, hy ’ Mehr, Singh, the eldest sox, ‘dict before his father, ! ip 1731, lowving a, 4on Hart’ Sipsh, who was siateep es a years old when Bhag Sin’yh succeeded, and who was tle rightful, héir had tite rule of pvimiddeni- tute been sprictly enforged, for; although a widow, whose haSbaad dies'in the lifettnte of bis fathdr has no claim, hp right? a son is “not indyblidated by eo» > é, ® ° Nex \ tive = 2. < e 6 : ; 6 a cf c . fs : eee « LAW OF INHERITANCE c a we. \ «cf oe eee a ee Ni i death of his father oe e* obtaining fhe chief- a> Zip ‘ i See i o slip. Phis pojnt ayy “hot appear to ‘have been e. = e e i Sw shoroughly: known ad he aseewas ‘subfnitted to . es «zethe Gover nment, : antl it’ is ‘impossible - to say ay z ae s : : whetiiet it*woulle aye had any tpfl uence one the eo ve e wliane ates iedton: : s @ 8 ; ° - « @ : i Oe 2 ¢ @ ay : ‘ 4 Ne, Kiija, does noe appear to have Mad any ee ecauise of complai i acnintt fjae eldest son, and the ro & , dispgsition he tae fas Owly, owing to Partab 2 | Singh heitig the greater, favérite, ais son. of the . . wife to whone “he was raat atached. oaineaet she a * Bad died many years befoue, when Partab Singh . . € . was mere infent ree ‘ . Es aera Ratti os aoe é ® e ° . it mus} be remarked thatethere wase no doubt = . about the vanities of the wil It’ was made when we the, Pp was in usa health, ‘dnd of sound mind; . ate and afte the subject had Ween, deliberately — discus- 7 . ded witlt the Agent of the ‘Governor General. 7 Pla e* oe: * e : : © € = e * The Gowrnment re-° ¢ The, Governmerft of India, to =whorh the will fuse to sanction the wilPmade by the Rdja, was submitted, when. thedeath of thfe Raja appeared . and deglare “that in the St&te® o Thind™ ° pote Jind imminent’ refused to sangtion the disposition, be sfs)ewed, ¢ * madé by hime As this was the first dec$8ion in the Sikh Kites: rebvarding the righh of primogeniture, ‘ ‘ oa poe as ike asserted ‘this *ule tor the -hefship ofTO SIKH CHIEFSHIPS. , Ares PEA Jhind, while it was»not till 1833 that Pattisha, Nabha, and Kythal yere Afitliovitatively, subject ,to it, a ‘quotation’ from she: sdeciston (Se echetay Ve to Government to Coloitel, ‘Nchterldry, 15th May 1818) will be of jnterest,, Mid oe ke >, » 4 » 2 > ? 0 > ce Jc hoe* Governor General in Council posyesses >? 2? no infqrmation yhigh affords a rdund of pulief “sthat the laws or psages of the"Sikths gengfilly or « the custom of Bhag Singh's fexgily. in patticular, ‘¢ leavé to the cAiet’ the chai of a successar to the "66 exclusion of the eldest. son, Admitting the fact. u allesod by Bhég Singh, ‘which, ‘Wowe oweyer, appears ’ _** front your despatch ta be. disputed, namely, that * he himself succeeded in, preference td his ky other, “it cannot be ‘inferre ed from, that fact that such was es the Paevaiane tustén of the family.* . > ve ) » d 9 2 ca € Whatever doubt »the Governor Gererdi* in ) és Countil might enbértain with regard to the justice, | ‘or propriety of opposing the will of Bhiig Singh, } ‘< if there Were gov reason to, are that if was » 3 a warranted by the, laws os usages of his tribe and ee os > #y It “aust yowever: be refnempered thab Bhag Singh was u firstinstance of 9 2uccession to the Jxfnd chiefship, which had been founded by His father Gagpat Singh, 3 that his own,case was the gonly possible precederé. The father of Gajpat ‘Singh was a aimple landowner, Sukhehen by name. Any authority zyh%ch eguld be deyived from *his grample js in fayor ot) division among, the sons, for»he foun’ ned two villages, Balénwal? and Sukchen, the ) ) former of which he gave to 'y eldest son ae Singh, she, the Matter to his | > second son Gafpaj Singh, SA > dDy LAW OF INBERITANCE Om amity, His Lordship in Council car have no “Ahesitition, under the*contrary impres sion which ae exists in_his mindgsin jefusing fo afford dhe coun-, ae ‘f (eae of tke British Gevernment to‘an arrange- | s : o ““mért, which He in His. Lordshiy’s S estithation, no A less ‘uhjug tn stintiple than ey to be perni- “ cioas ‘in its ¢ el ets. You are aythorized therefore « to Neclare ‘to the parties Go ncernetl otc do the ee . mas sieving fiends of the fagniy, after*the death (of a ee Bhig ‘Singh, that eee of Koer Partiab ee ; y J ? i) A. > The ork case of saeihesies' is tei Of The wil case of Sirdar Jodh Singh of “tte will ofthe celebrated Sirdar Jodh y. oh of, Kalsta, re ee Kalsia, who was killeg’ at M, ae aN in 4818. ; age a be ge ; Some: yas hears his death Jcah Singh tad | y ; | made a partition of His property, faking over one- , ; . » third to hjs ee son § Sobah Singh, another third nie > “to his Second son ste Singh, and retaining the eee s remainder hintself, with four forts, and atithority , : gee : over all the jagindars, pultignars and other adherents f ites ee of the State. » a f 7 OS ae ee Tari Singh. died sodn after his father, leaving ’ ; Da, son, Dewa Singh, about thrge, years of ,dee, ia ay ; eo : “who nattyalll sucupedce tg his father’s share. Se aes. ; ’ The yall daly safc d the portion of the | teryitory retained By Jodh Singh-himselr) andl’gave, , to Sobah Singh onezhalf of iv, with the lands and ” forts called’ the es shard, and autltoridy over all ‘the pajtiddrs: "and other adherents. MEG Mt eS 2 9 > 0 9. family, « The mothe had no right to gucceg!. e & e @ @. Pci Eke Sirdari sh&re Nee to the eldest Son, who elso had authority over all the dependant¢ of the ad . LAW OF INHERITANCE Kah, the mother of the second son, Hart Sing h, = "qe 4 -akcedsé, was allottell, fife es half for life, to wravert te her ef fandgan, Dew Singh,,‘at ler death., e The will was ‘opposed. by “Mai Jiah} and by Dewa ‘Sing. e The Hrmer claymed the whole’ of. the reserved she of of Hot husband, on the eround that the a ins hade Wrtions ‘allotted "40 them by their fat hee amd that she, as his bnlf survivikt eride ewas entitled to all her husband retained for him- sel€. * Bhe objects to, the vatidjty of the will, from its ro ‘having been signed or witnessed. by any, hiefs, but. ranly by Sobale Singh’s The: genuineness of the will was, heighbouring” own bitigials. however, allowed, and fhe ortly points necessary tor . notice, ‘tre the fustice of ifs provisiols according to Sikipdaws 2. o, <.° oe ‘ “e q \ ‘ € e e : Mai Jiah’s clan was sar sleae’ as, a son ant sana stl living, he could no claim as a widow 3 ‘vat ortly as a mother, and ‘in the division of posses- > sions thesmothar is entitled to nothing Wiiatever, \ “bat are, maintenanée® 2 ‘and: theewyll waves to het far more than she had‘ fi warrant to etpect. @@* : € e *. e © With regard to the Sirqaxe share beag allotted to Solab Singh, whe thias obtained a larger portion than his ne phew, Dowd Singft, was to ( te ondy { =: none J > > > , TO SIKH HIEFSHIPS. ’ oe : oe . » », ay receive the reversior? of hig er endmother’s pidvGnit Gol 3. eee » “33 > has peoratated, in'para.s 16; that, although the ity? i ‘division between “brotheys ’ was nominally’ edi ait ve yet thate She elder cenerally oS ved ¢. somew hes ® a » e larger share, “known as “Sird& " Ss ba bg th the head = > > and representative of thes sarily The ‘elde ig son,» eo : 2 » i pattidaps® or ’ 9 9 > ; ~ 9 x ™~ctainers: asin the, ose of Gulab ‘Singh phahid, PS EPS ms ’ 5 moreoyer, " hod’ aire gleover all t who obtained authority ovey, ally the pattidgrs ‘of re eee his fati?er and ¥dunber brothes Mehtib § Sing. The. aes > I~ 4 € £- r ( 3 q : cg ® 8 Shah&bad family waa alihost the ee in which. , > a * @ > the pattiddrs were under ‘the jormt control of all , , ihe sows. othe 7 jagir ‘digs, 3 in,the same way, “were at ’ ; the merey of the ohio’ to expel vr wetain in their ‘ei holdings., " is , , » a ” % ’ > The claim of Pewa Sigh, the nep hew,° Wag only made at the instance of his aHother, »Wyho Was ya sister vf the Raja ot Pata and »was? for equal, >, ° ‘richt: oyer the jagtrdérs and patiidars, ‘and the, 2 . : half of -adl property left by, aude Todt Singh » : oe independent of ‘the estates’ ‘0 which, by Sikh” jaw, ) all the sons "had aneqyal right. » ) “yo : ,9 eS \ » ) > ’ vo i tl ’ . ’ * > I .. 5 d > Phe Government, in Go ober, 1826, confirmed ae ; » the will, ov ing tojSoba ah «Singh the shalt oof the oe uy reserved earate with the forts, and the Szrtari pshare, ’ ) y oO. : e0 = = NS ae a ‘ ey OF INH[RITANCE se i t- ~ ed ee inothaitly the Hatees, ee and guns which | ee: : eis _2gomspany it oe a will Was Myuiued as co regdrded the fands in jagtle which, being considered : ee = “the gare as thoye ir in actual possession, werd divided : equally’ et een Soltth Singh and his jephew Dew4 oe “2 nenele The Prone of the will regardis ng Mai . J {ah were maintained jn tlegir Ctegrety« e, a ae . @ e 6 ‘ . « e ai 42. It pall pus appeay that the decision of ‘e- Government in this‘ case was*no® ‘founded? on the . : + same principlé as in that of Jhind, witeré the* : : right of primogéwiture’ was affirmed ‘and the claim ao of the yousger son ¥ refysedy Th the case of & Salsia, . . < Es lare ge and imnporéant State, cecal division etween = 2 ° Pretbens was assumed to be the general Sikh rule, oe with a sonfewhat | larger share te the elder as the oe head of the famjly. the third Utustration i : * e Ca « show 4 yalucision ‘by ‘Ww! hich; the elder son recetyed a oe *suarecankidertbly larger than his younger brothers, ‘ <= ayho nevertheless obtajned SO much ag, to athke tlie” or -¢ ce s "* arraagement 4 real wartition of ethe State ine theiz ‘ 3 favqy. : ae Se ei (- oe vs e c « € ones oS ae erie 43. Raja Nihal Singh, soca. of Kaptr- aes 08 thalla, died in Septqmber 1852 , feaving three sons, ~ « Randhf §iteh,’ tht’ eklest, Ky hjs firs st wife, and : Bikré dha Singh and Suchet. Siqgh by’ his oe e e @.e e“UAL EES for jagirs, pensions or Goverhiment fering, Pe a ge \ ) ) = TO \IKH \CHIEFSHIPS. ‘ , ve ge ee a?» He had been verry Cocirens of leaving Lite Waele ae territon y. “and, the Succession to the Raj to his Phy oe ‘youngest son, ‘but from this’ he had been Gissnaded ” ee by the BrStish authorities.’ ‘He exeputed a will, be 3 a which he left? the larger portidp, of hiefteistitory to < " his eldest son, and to each of the,twq yong ar 2 estate of ove lakh VE yupees, upencumbered ? with ’ ° > all of which were to be paid oer Raja‘s share. . Ta AP 6, our cee ‘She revenues of the State wer, at this tine, | - : Rs. 5,77,763, and the nazvane phAblt to Govern- »’ i ment was Rs. 138,090, ’while jagtrs chargeable, on Ss “the revenues were Es. 61, 372. » rhe. division thus ae er oe nominally gave two lakhs a your to the elder son, » me. d and *one lakh tg ea agh of the younger, but the . am numeyous claims of” pensioners, and of relatives oes fok maintenance, all of = were borne by” the Raja, reduced his share of “clear irigome. to littles ‘ ete ‘more than a lakh. Pal ee a oe : P ’ - se zy The will was submitted to the Board of Admt. nis tration, ° who, approved of ‘it, and forwarded it i for the sanction of the Governor General Before os Die this sanction was séecived.the Réja died, and the ee ae Board requested tilat. N10 a aegore might be takem* 7 till ue farther eepenla. on the cceee of which D wee : of a pinin SO, ‘recently undcy adjudicatien, ‘and ( «a a es « See 6 LAW OF INH[RITQNCE « e Sg f eee ‘ « oie the Goybrnor General canfirméd the wi i in every patticular, and declared that the shares of the te eh, e two® younger «sons Shoal be divided off whenever « « ““trey‘sotdestred.‘« ; ° 6 © «¢ bea a) °«¢ e @ ¢ . e e- ¢. & € <€ e From. th at time the Raja of Kaptrthalla hasen- “ ce to eof the will set i asides but the Vi iceroy, eco IY) ey 1868s re -affirmed the deen of bjs predecessorin 1853, and directed ha t effect should be e% c ©« « givet to it withouf* dela ay. « ‘Agetnst thie final decision the Raja appedlee 46 the eet Gorern- ‘ ment, who, mait ining the validity of ‘the 3) ill, have directed “that the younger Brothers’ shages should € be held on aslite e tenure, and have given thé elder‘ * brother full administrative jyrisdiction “Over the whole te rritery. ne : an e e : € « t e ‘ @ € © « a et foutd be diteyny enignt to discuss the merits Cw into. the pa ase of which many poljtical * © ar et *¢. considtsations. h AVES, | of necesstty, entexed, . he - points however, havings _divect relation te Sikh Fis owe ged by the "Raja, may oe noted. "These : ay ere athat the rule, Of prmogeniturgs must ‘Be followed. jn tha, depoont of qpietshi ‘we. :*the alae: son, obt teint the e borrtory ed the RY 3, and the younger * séns only maintenande : and secondly, e € € ‘ ®70 SIKH VHILESHIPS. illegitts mage, and. incémpetent, to succeed NO ee d oO 7 ws a ; a > Q 9 ¢ & wy Ad... elhe "last. tase re *be noticed is tha at of = Sirddr Ranjit 8 Binch of Baidyfn,y Thy ok Hof" died “* ' in, ——S leaving three sons, Tassa Singh, Bhup Singh, ‘and Axbe\ Siagh, who: di hited th Wt abid. : emony antong them. "Not "till May 1828, did the » widow come forward” With: a will, purpdtting to” > >? 25 that the younger sons of Raja Nihal Sali nee a The will of” goirdar have been execaste® by her husbind, disinherting os »his three sons and, leaying the wkole of his pos- sessions ‘to her: Her ex tplanatiy A “of her long silence was that she had, ever since her husband’s » “death, oe Kept 3 in strict restr aint, ‘and ae reason for her husband’ S disposition of his property was to Be found in the fept that hisssons,had treated him with creat cxtelty, dnd hhad kept, him in cdufinement till released by AD, ‘order fr om Captain i) » Pa] ) Birch, "the Politital Ag cent. > > z > ©. : y 0 0 . ? This will was“Set aside, its genwinenéeAbeing exc seedingly ddybtful ; and however rgproheatible soyis, He S 3 a? they alt a had no O power to "di isipherit theyn ¢ ltogetl ner ») ’ ? ? 9 4 \ °® » > ) ; re , ~” ° = ae : 7 = ile eas q a *45,°-N sing) s casa cab be discovered in > oo” j , ) crs % h 4 yf A 4 ry > har a which. wiedws have been allowed to beqy1ea 9 > , > > » may have Foor theycon aduct t oft the, Sirdar’ d » Ther ight o of Widows to disbose 9 vy aw Wht Sige OF Baid- 3 £ we estates éLAW OF INHBRITANCE e “é « es «Ss a% ~ * The case ‘of Rani J , her e, nevertheless Q nines of ia landed propérty by will... There ax ; ~ ralg. ® Parr few insteaces« on record of ‘such afterents x bein’ ce “made, ‘As was the east, 3 with’ Réni Bhagbari : : 4 eer al Bakdlas widew of Bhai Karam Singh. She, ee having* no\near 1 relatives of her‘ husband living, ‘ w¢ bequeathed pat VeEEnLeRy to Sirdérs -Goyerdhgn Sintth and Arar Singh, sons.of ek aja Hamfy Singh of Be eee * Mant Mira hy’ het youngest daughter, Mai Chaxz a " Kour, ie ? £¢ é £ e € « Se e < ) TO SIKH \CHIEFSHIPS. the right, as i escheat of an estate! appeaved , do. 2 them desirable or Ainconwenjent. At ‘he: same ‘time it 1 is not’ dificult taydetermine , the. einen - disregarded i in carga cases, ‘but «fill me denied: § that’ no collateral could, of»,tight, fi ecoed to a chiefship. This general principle, must beheld subject to somerm Mlificgtion ; but that this whethe > ) ean be no doubt. e ‘ : , ? y? . ‘ , 4 > 0 9 ” : => Chiefships were considered altogether differant d ’ from private*real property,’ in ,ths mode of their ’ descent. ares the , Malwa» Sikhs, a _ private =estate, on default of ‘linea? heirs, would rovert to a collateral ,descendaztt, seoneenee and enjoyment of an indep. mndent por- tion of ‘the Dee of the common anggstor. But chiefships were Eqyemot By,a diferent mule, . which tecognized, the rigitt oa ‘paramount State to, sycceed, in certain cases as, the ultimate ” heir. In the yhind' succeszion cage, herd ‘Sirdar Dartp “Singh, of Bazidpée, claimed>the ae of his expat: grandfather. Raj Gpjpat Singh, he desired the tev- rito»y to be consitiered as private pro perty! and sub- ject to the ordinary. mules Jf, inheyitante. But the estates of Gajpat Singh were held entix -ely on @ different teaire, Ate poe taalikddr of the Deh > » > nofwithstandiag his , , é os * = »>° 8 “se , » », , ae > ¢ Dd 2 ta |, The ‘right of cola als to sudbeed fs =" sae g0¢ adinidtedapin the e Sikh States 8 e ™~ > ek y . > di e, . > e » e > - © > > > > : : > » ae ) > —> - age eo > i > % > : ? > » > , = ’ oe 2 > s . 2 ~~ > > > ) » » ? ) ) 9 > > g ’ : » > y > ; 2ri LAW OF INHERITANCE , ° oe ooee SS ‘ on % ae a 5 : Es Enpores jeiving” himsergyijce, andpayingrevenue, and ee a he wag: adi one occasion, «carried to Dehlicen a kept is ~~ ee “there a prisoner for three years on acdount ‘of arrears” ee Fae OL reson tie, by & akshi, Nojit Bee; as, fére similar = q CASORS ssdpatte lq. ¢hief was stincok and taken ; = to Sithind: in, the reign of Muhammad Shah, and * - cs : as Bttai Lal sinSh, the chiaf of Gythal, as | carried: : fe “t 0 BEN and tierce’ ‘torturede el ae € S a = The Sikh chiegs oS. The Mafra Siths, when, after a, period when they came Ueder . British protection ‘fe comparatiye independence, they placed them- , were inthe san& po- sition with regard to ~ : - Selves undere the grotection a the British’ Govern-. tt gs they had befre © io tie Bmpoross oP ment, dssumed to it the same,position that they $ « Dehli. ee hata held té the Empercr of Belhi. Pheir privileges _~ « were 16 eveater yar “before ; th&ir coer ey . : s to alienate Estates ‘was ho further extended ; their relations, to the Sarafnount ‘pow er, were “np less we cleaxly defined. Tt the right ‘of claiming escheats, ‘ in ealiee. of lizteal heirs was denied to the British , oo e = Governinent, its aseayaption of the: protectgrate of" e x oe the Sixtés was, altogethex a misvale: ‘This Pprotec- : . tor ate was a source ‘of. constant Anxi lety, trouble eS oe. 3 ahd expense. The chiets, the woment "that they ‘ @e. f e tied gscaped the Oe of | absorptic a by the e e ° Lahore M ahardjay tyrne 2ed their hands against € each: A nth 1} \ y 1 a ny + Bo other, and, their’ ve petual ‘diputes anid,intrigues, PAVE eitoe ¢ . 1 ] Pe - Gave rise fo innumerable political complieations ‘» | , TO S{KH \CHIEFSHIPS. ee > > 55 de and necessitated the mainteparce of a Navoty foree ’ on tiie “north-west frontiers Was it “th: sought ‘motives of ‘humanity an Senevolen ee alénie that the Government assumed ’ this invonyeni jet and” ‘odious charge to save from the: srapacit: y of Ranjit ‘Sitch be eliefs who had sought aes , pr dteetjon 2 D> No such wy aavetiion hao ever serjously been nts, “Hie Government of Lahere, rapacious ‘and vhnseru- pulous as it ee be, was a,fhous and. times battey, in orang way, than “that of the Cis Sang chiefy, which” wag infamous beyond, all traditjons of mis- government, and, if the interests of” the people had been ebneerned, ‘the’ R. sitish Governme nt would have allowed Ramjit Singh >to cimplete his, con< quests to the ‘south sof the Satlej, and gestroy for ever the’power of the’ fyrainical chieftain ns, who were only a curse td the ae 3 : = - But the Gov ornigent ‘ddés not appear sto have, been influenced, by eOnsitieratons — as “these. # Tt aceepted, the po a ot the Cis; Satle} Stated on, cer saith well-wtyderstood: edint ditions, the prinlpal’ of which’was undoubtedly that, its nosition tows ds’ . States should fe the same as, that formerly held by ‘the Muhqmmadi Em APEroPss, - and. that to it, as paramoupt, all egates spoull, lapse? on failure. of direct héirs. J? the general right of ‘egllaberal , » d 0 y » Os a7 >; > ’ > » > S) Lee an ; ~» - ,9 1&8) ’ : : @ Ie o: ’ bein Seah . > , > % 9? y D t » an > > » wa y 7 ? de > - ® e, . % ’ e , . @ a. ? ") y » , : > » ° > 2% » a ; es » > > , e » > @ - > ® 2 ° » & > » » ~ , oe 2 > > a > j » » = 2 » 9 a 2) » 3 » a » 2 sas » ) 9 9 > ) d , > » ’ es , , ’ ) a‘ < 5 Th URS Tl OF ) LAT AT ( a NE LAW OF gee (ee oe i is \. oe : Ms Zs gale i . ‘Suceésston lad beeneallgwed, neither Buria, Firoz- pate ‘ent phe: Respir, Ky{hale Mustaph DAd, w Arabala, oN Fi Ehanesat, Rydhour, Dig ghar, ‘nor‘a single other’ im a oe estate, wonld ever have lapsed to Government. s : e é é €: : & é ee o ‘ r« - e a \ 6 ca - 2 3 Es Se Se The Lahove Go- s 49. ‘The onty r Sikhe State which ‘bore to its ee «vernment did not ret cognize *the rights of 8 , soiatros Ta oy depen oS the s same xelation i at thee & His- Satlej failure o linead - * De cdate lapsed. « Chitfs Bore to the British Governments was that Of ae a Lahoxe. Thére # no > BE ollaterat “syecession ip the pripetpal Piratkdin * e. maintained that theit legal Succession to the ; ’ 5) Re ’ : a 2 »? 0 SIKH VHIEFSHIPS. eet ¢? » 8 Es yy i 2A ; > . s 9 50. That ‘collateral succession was theorsti- eee eustom ee *- 2e Wa marriags S/LOW 12 6 = > 4 that? the fi i = cally denjell among the Sikhs is roy x” by he Baavorats ee ee Pe » been denied. : ’ custom of harewa? marriage, sof which it: ivimpasti- os oe > ble to understand the origin if ae sucépssion _ => : < > a = was permissible, ’ Its only objett dindodbtadly y was =>, ’ to give the brother a right which he woutd other, > 9 », wise net , have jjossesstd. The onfly ress of Pak 3 families, previous to 1836, were those,of Raja Amar ‘Singh of Pattidls, Réja Hamt, Singh of Nabha} and * ,» os = RajasG aa jpat Singh ot dhitd, and in’each of these , : the brother succeedéd thfotigh: a/karewa marriage 7 ss with the widow. I? Js not a asserted that these - Qo > “chiefs *would not Have | succeeded’ had no suah ’ j marriage taken place, for the right of the widow ” — was constantly disregarded s , bub it may certainly ass = éstate eee with nek, the estate would not legallsy have passes.” ° |, >. > Gr «F » ~ > 2 : collat nplly. : ‘Ag 7 ® », was through the widow, and that, Without 5 § union > S, Se: vs me rag 9» 5 = 7 ee 9 4 ; ee ‘51. The cases in which’brothers and boihen: wie IAE ® . ® ? 0m @ growers ae t seu) ; children have svaceeded to astatds, inde penslently mes made ee dateral righ es be ‘of the righ? conferrell through a hare Wor marriagé, so far admitted. > ie aye, however, numerous 5 and. ft yhay, ‘perhaps be . conceyed that, as fr as the te two classes: of re a > : : y , > es , . 2é $( ele LAW OF INHPRITANCE noe Sw = «s Al pee ‘ . tiqns wre core exhod, ,eollteralsueéession was not. Be ce Oe as unkomrhor. In paras 19, 20, 21 and, of vinstance’ > ae ‘have béchi glyen of vies syccession of brothers or Se = © ore tothe prejidicetof the widow ; : Sige : “is "strme, \by Hiolance or fraud,’ bat stall to be ‘ ..° soe as ‘precedents of more or joss value. But . ‘ ithe Oro others and nephewsethe Colt »0f ¢ilateral “sucadstion must be held to eceage, “and.it was onlys* ander exceptional pirounstanges, and for reasons of Ses Staté policy, that the Govetnme’t allowéd the’ . 6 claim of cousins or cof . distant kindred. " ©The en te : decision in the Riswis case, in 1819, Site ch has ‘ already, been ore at eg0me length. aud by : ‘ which the estate, passed tq’ a second cousin, was © * avowedly founded Paap ) precedent. , . d - « ° @ ‘ . ( ‘ e @ é 52.° The most inferesting ase which, hag : ‘ ay occurred, Since die .Englich connection with the The case , of the dis- * pyted suctesron to Sikh slates, with reference GO <1 the question of v6 the Jhind Stat¢ eth 5 @ ‘ "1835, @ , collateral «suceepsion,« is that “of ae chiedship of * ee € a “4 Shind\and which, , although* not “decided in, acoofdands with aes gi sh av ore ‘the precedents <7 . | ae cf es j a ficltahe Government had itgeld create edi, is’ sat Of. : oe. 60 ) important a ‘cha ardeter that some detaxed notice ° of it éappot, Witlp propriety Re omitdied® dere. ; : : e . © « ‘ e ‘ < i ; 66m e : ° " The following grenealggic cal tx see will oxplain the . @e : * ‘e < « ¢position :— ache Sey Re ay ee BB ae a oa ¥ : . 3h . ) oe } ee “Me :. ae >: d >» DJ ? ’ e > rs , : marry ‘ se TILCKHA s a A > > e ; 2 > ~ « a a oD SP . - a 0 > » , aI * Girditta, Sukthe shen. > from whom has ae 3 » > ' » descended the ” a2 Og? / an > Nabha Qmily. ” 2 : > « as * < > > > ye : >. Sets » | Ce pele Po 3 aes : Alam Singh. Raja G: ajpat Singh» "Bulaki Singh fee yo died in 1789. , a : * E es > | a2 4 ® D » * € » 3 2 > ee > Oo : 2 $ » eS" ov » > @B , @) > ; [eA eee ae » , died 181, died 1814.9 ,° fowler the a es | , -Badruka family. : : ; ; > q » Pi >D | >" : : — i s a” ’ PS >, : » ( > Hari Sinsh, Fatah Partéh Mehtéb Karam Basawa : = died 1791. Sisch, Singl? ? Singh, ” Singh, , Singh, dfdin diedin died in died in died in BE oc = E821) 7 18p5, > 18]4. 1817. 1830. , i a ; *s ~ | > e 0 O dv , » 5 | > ° ; 9 | s Mehr ‘Singh, Raj? Bhiesstheh, Bhip Singh, ‘the , : of > s o s 2 > 8 ; ae f » Raja Sangat» Singh, ® . Sartip Singh. > ,° : 9 died in 1834. , a 3 > De os) or > = : 2 3d —O ae es » se : d > ee ® j eo > oe e’ : i | : SukhépSingh. Bhag a Singh ’ gd x Sy ; >» é ss ’ » > ] ~ > 2 ® 2 or ® ad Oo > > % ® 8 ry ; 9 j Do SOA Raja Sangat. Singh or ‘Shind died ‘in 18345 | : > ” 9 yithouwt’issue, his | nparest mal lg "relations being, his | +2) setond cougins, A Sin a »Sulchin dingy and ; > » 2 Rhagwin $i pgh. Sp~bib Kour, the elder widow of oe ae Raja. Batgt Singh amd mother ‘of ja Sangat 2 ee a 4 erin 3 ‘Singh, as ssumed charge of t the State, for, during UH es .»2k : ( )e es LAW OF INHERITANCR 4 | , Se ‘ mat \ ‘ ‘ « « q 4 4 . « * Sf. ex: x é me ens aici of her son $h&-had acted as pesent, and Se. 6 gt: 4 oe .* for some. months no direct. claims were advanced to e @' so : the vacant throne., “The pier of Pattidla ape. s ==> © hee Ikytpmnt then detfimined’ on pres sing thé Slaim of the nedrest colfatatal heir, ane ‘Sartip Singh, | : . ‘the ckiet of & azidpur, héving discovered that they a ‘ ogild. ain more edrong hit thn fi from Réiné Sahib o 6 Kour ahd the ‘sther widows, Rhe Raja of Nébita a “then. advanc’d bjs chim, as a collateral ; Sirdar eo Sykhé Singh on the Same ground ; ‘the widows of - : : _ ‘the late Raja; ’ the widoys of his fathee ; and, Tastly, - Rani Lhagbari, the widow of Prince Partdb Singh. With references to several "ef eee claims ‘a few, words only are e‘required? « i aw, . g q « ieee (d.) The Rij a of NA ‘bha cl cl are at why rate ~ a, «0 re ‘as belxg a destent lant from the same Ze ancest of ‘as the Raja of, Jhind. But hise @laim ore is as een on the sréund: that the chiofship ‘ = of Jhind.had den fotnded | by Raja (cre Jpat Singh = : "© subs sequently “ to his « sgoverance «from the «Nébha~ branch. “ee pee : e « f a ee @ € « € e « 7s . ‘ S > i @ pe . , (8) The widoars of the late Réfa had, un ¢ doubted) hasbuih ae ich law, a Valid’ « ‘laim ip es inkerit? But the e td , 2 © Seventy: thre years of age, aad he two younger 4 « e ‘ te" f $ a $ ° ; dest, Subhe mea ‘ewas ‘only,TO SIKH es > fe ee | Mee were mere ghildrén. ’ It was velt that A, woul he S See ; ae * dangerous’ in the extreme to trust sp important, B ae a | 2 : “charge as ’ the pripeipality, of ,Jhtad ‘nto such ; wey. feeble hhnils, ona the claims of publi Tou to ae a ae . _ inherit exclusively. and of the younger widows for ; aS. a partitéon, were aljke disallowed». »» mod ; ee o < 3 , ) iB ney es PS “(@) “R4ni Sthib oun, tht, alder widows ‘of ty se | . Raja Fatah Singh, clajmed, J in the same way, to succeed, while the evond eilows demanded pattie °* peo 4 = tion, © The elder Rant might, witht justice, have. : : claimed the regency had a minor succeeded, but 3 Pee » to inherit herself was preposterous, as te” mother » : has no right in any case ’of, succession? : , ee > > si e > > _ “(de) “Mai Bhagbdari, the’ widow of »Prince ae PRarta» Singh, clare ed, as the elder widow of ’Rijg . ° - : Bhig Singh’ 1s favorite sh ; but Panta Biagh never pee ape asstimed Hie “ehtship. himself, end” no rights’ iF < . : a “eduld, t be acquived through hifn." a a Ps sees ; ? ° , a ee ee tas cledunter 16 53, The dispute then? as to the, sticcersion, eed ollie chic of Baztdpir and Bad , supposilg the Ge vgpnment declined to Bn J aa AS suka. ice »9 al escheat, lay between , Sarip,singh of azglpir, - - and Sukk Syogh os Badréka, and of Shese the , 9 ; ‘ title of S: Sapup ‘Singh, as tlpe son, of the eldev of Awo 1 : = brothers, ¢ppeare@ preferdble. But séverdl? con; . ee s » 9LAW OF INHERITSNCE, i: e < of "ae ele ( « c, - =, oe Fe sideidttSns db more ‘or“dess weight were, urged by’ Poe a | Sida ykhs Singh, « In’ thes first place, he insisted | ec . thas the ‘Custom j in thé J Thind family , as insti¢ nied. ee ae by Rap ae Singh w was the successior! of the second gon in prefer ence to the alder’ It is quite 2 ‘ true (hat “Bhdg «Singh * endeavoured to place Itis ae sepond om on the « threne > not “vishinge toe esbabe oe “élish’ any rule for the future’ Pulbiude of the family, < . bué simply becauge Pateab, Singh yes. his favorite ; ; ‘yet santtion to this” arrangément was altogether y . ‘refused by mt British Governments after whine authoritative ruling, in 1818, primogeniture must be oe held to préPail in the J4 ind? family. ‘Sirddr Sukhén,< . Singh, «moreover, forgot that his Qwn argument : e would exclude hinr in favor, of*his youngér brother. Ce e © ; é « a « e e' € @ - e : e c e © e € « e 4 é « « a2 € «@ « e ‘ € Sdirip Binghlleged* ‘The .. stcona and ara anger objection to Sartip . to have been disinde- gited by a cet ie ra€ + 5 The lenal. arch ingh was thas ‘his father, ‘Katam' Singh, Ira ‘been ‘ * such achion. # « ad ‘ ‘ incoppdtent to succeed, Iti is not possible to dis- ; disownede andg disinherited,” end. was thevetone’ € Q < e « = « ; cover whe her Kari am) ‘Singh was absolutely , dis- | ‘ ‘ ithe’ ted by his, father ; but, the probAbilities ‘are ‘ as t ao ‘ muchas in fay or of thie having tilke en plaes. He was, = 6 @ : a man of bad charagtert. and, quarrel led wit Sir dy e « e cox Bhp Singh, ‘whom he refusetl tobe ay, ar’e‘moreover @ 5 ) uf eG! 0@ & 4 4 oe we * 00k * forcible possession of Razidpir « he sae e,:_ » occasion rot Bhup, Singh’ S death, hit youyget Son; -) Basséwa Singh, sonenaed the funtral obsequies ; ’ ® . ? . , TO SIKH CHIEFSHI¥S. i Page ee »? "9 | \ > , oe : a '’ separating himself fom his s own family, who hes ‘no furthers jotamunigation’ with him, and,, on thre alone. ‘The R u4j7s allied to’ the family wes = » alleged, had entik ly agreed I in the propriety of dis inheriting the elder SON,e neverthbbes’ “decrectl shat : » each sou “sould obtain ‘a mbiety, of, she patrihony, ’ though, in reality, ‘the younger son Bassdiwa Singh! obtained two- thipds and the, elder Karam Singh . » one-third only: Karam, Singh tried * hard >to obtain the family astate 88° Bagrukag but in vain, and, at that time,, 1816, the’ Raja of ‘Pattidla "» addressed Sir David @thterlony to tg “rect os tlrat ‘Karam Singh had for ‘eight years preriously, , % during his father’ S lifetime, deserted yhe paternal cs aboge, and segided separhtely at Bazidpuy, but ‘rhat, had he Sa wow: his fathere ‘during: the» Ze lifetime of the state,” : then, oh, his Tather's oO >> BS decease, be would hot ay e pene excluded. , " AXtl bOach by Hindi Lag a son Gn hag beep expelled by his fatter and, who had not taken a Share m the perfermahoy of his fuaeral» obsequies® ‘ould « have no titbe to selon yet, among the Sikkhs, skies ~ a. chicfslip of / which ‘Drupeep tiara was the accepted a1 tule, it adoes not appear that thé father 5 5 ee} veo a, y ® "ff > X > » > » r ’s a os \v aay OF eee PE ENCE f a | * € 3 ei veg ae = AS as the } power jo disinherite the elder son." be: a . = - — ae “aidstont’ were cue er ‘atbitzary divisiop ¢ among ee eo ee : . ays, $ $115, power to disiheri one woulde probably , ; | So : not be qtestloned. , Girdar “Sartip Singh was, at : s es = ‘anys rahe, dsintgrited or not, held, to hae a hetter = : fitle oa an his cousis¢ *Sukh4 Singta, and the Ques , s «tion a dyfose? to what Le on of th® Jhind : = oe s t@ riton revas pe eptitled to succeed’ hés*power, aS ‘ © ‘$6 a collateral, fo suéceed at all, bting granted. : te bo rip pene “. « O%, The J hind Slate consisted ei the Shind pértions. Raja Gajpat Sing ch, the (oan a : | . : “fax mily, had¢himeelf Svar Karn#l, Fhind and ae .

Ne ie d d a > “with the éxception ofthe Lahore grants, subse: quadti fe eo » > = ‘ pee dw, eee : > “to 1809, whych justly rbverted? on failure of heit’, ae Pe = 4 > ¥ a a » to the ortginal dqnor? . ? oes oo co o e i | \ 9 ves 0 a < : ) : 65? “This was the decision’ of the . G9" sornor ” Re Puers of Gow > i vergimnent, ” alGtens = General, in ‘his see No: 203 Gf the ; L1Lth Hm only 30 much as gy ; wad been os possession February 1837 : nee uc : oS ea > | . Pin COMM: , BRCES= in 7 2 0D 9 d, oa ” P _ » 9 Q - £ Tt ‘has hecn resolyed by the Right Honorable Pe. . s y “4 the Governor General i in Council, to recognizs : »? 6§ the vight of Sfrddr Sanip Singh to succeed to th fe. ie ‘ D >? » s yossessions of his great-g¥ ndfathers Gajpat Singh, . 700 accordingly to velintyuieh to*Sartip Singh » . » * thestracfs of conutty’, generally, waich belonged ee »> : > -** to his ancestor Gjpat § Singh, throug whom he :? — pe derives, his titles, with the exception to be here- ° > : 2 9 > ES after noticed, eee 9 , mg @ 3 > » > Y : > ) » »» > (3). “The possessions which were granted, — a ‘by Maharaja Ranje Binek, * subsequent} to the = =o ** tre edty of 1809, ee to be made over to tht ‘yy . oo. oD 2 “ és officers, of His Highness. aoe ee 2 > tS > : ; > 3 > 2 4 E 4 > > » - ’ os , Dd (4). Ludhiana and ell,the othe? possession a ee i acqhired by’ te descendants»’of Gajpat | ‘Singh, - st ebay ty to the death of thas chief ina shefoyre a . ¥ the. year”, » 7809,/ have lapsed. tothe British d d ‘ ’ Jd 6 Goy ceeaent vy ?/ a8 A In conclusipn, there ware laid down ‘an’ aitho- a « Bt Se attativg, "rule for fuburé" pu idance in ee of e e me - Sagcessi ion - the fours gteates phincipalties : et ° . “ e, -. a e ( % « . e ¢ € x Ginn e ee “6 Whege abithorities are so conflietihg, and : ‘ : uns practice so Wisettled, as (n hey* appear to be | ‘ © in ibe tiucéeof, country referrgd to, His Tordsht .p & “6 o @e | ‘in Countil, is ae opiniow that if’ 4s pus per ane ey aa us expedient that some genera principles should, - “i where practicable, i established by the British tee Se ee Gsveunment, and every donddentilan of usage, Boos .** justice and policy, seein td re{juire that, as regards ee: .« “the four pr ineipal chiefshipsot Pattidla, Jhind, Ky- = “thal arid Nabha, the rale ought to be that the estate. ¥ Roe ‘sshould devblwe éntirest) the nea rest nie heir, : se according to the Hinds Law and to thetexclusion ae -> OF fothales Wi ith regard tot all fhe other Sikh es. : e. ~-& tates, ' the ‘customaof ia fatnily ‘aust be ascertaited a . Ae ‘in eats instance by ie best evidence precur: é e ¢ « ee /°@ 3 3 ay fea blee e@ ‘ 4 ¢ € « : oe « ¢ €° ; « “< . . € * é : : “ eee Abplying the chove principle to theccase of cs : Soddas ipa, Savip,Singh would unquestionably’ appear a) ie “to deve the bestclaim, but he ag ‘have no right td 7 : ef Y ‘ suceeed" to mous than wasSepessessed be his gregte “a grantdtather Gajs pat Singh a den whem he derivgs f 4 <> e é « « € -#- ae *s has title.” * e ; @ oeTO a CHIEFSHLPS. ») : : d > do , @ > ) a nf irectors i iss ‘Le 2 Ahis puling as to ara ; a 2. UG: The’ Cours of D : n a despati we ae ee ee "dated | the : ae of Noventter 1837, was dispofed aoe oe iit Cour > *Lirectors,' @ , to adopt» a. still more denieht wiew of wartip 'Zingh! ig Oe \ title,’ and con¥idered that * ony lands, not trepetied — | by ae trom Ranjit Singh. ‘or ‘ths British sh s0yein- ba 2, . ment or eo a desaaabee mit vastly bg treated ad pritate ‘property, in ‘which “case,” Sindp Singh | : would b& >the legitimate heir. This ruling, vas a re not of any ‘great *importance, ‘but the principle it? ve involved Ne gh) be Yairly® questioned, since, eae > ‘chiefship of a State’ like Jhind was, ag regarded the paramount power, onand jadivisible, and any’ : lands acquired otheywise thar by grant from the Hae " Government? were nevertiieless held, a under its profection antl’a authority, on a» tenure , in ces milar to those réceiyed by a direct grant. ae ary d ) 9 > . > > , . 57. The case, of Thind: is, no ‘mot o than, an Oo 9 ) instance of a State wilich might justly } pie v0 Been zr considered to have ese cheated to-» the’ Su ipreme” > 7 . Goverment, eag allowed se hevert, De and ~ 2 not by right, to. , the nearest collatetal. That thijas x ais rule has o bean the one always or, ofben follows Al ae by Governthenti sabandantly clear, ne althbugh: : » the subjets of the srights of ‘coNaterals awd the , ee ~ ‘principle’ which gyveyn esthents j js°so intricate and vast, thes its ys est’ outlines’ can be, given {n'a Lo dtt = ' INHERGTANCE nes eo oo UA iS < “i a : < “is, like, ‘the nent, if fs néeessary to notices’ fe te ee bhiefly. alipee other bases, occurring shttly hefore | : i ee ‘o1* shor hy after? that of J hind in iwo,of which the « : ~ - a oe Sey glatms of colfatetals ‘ Were pmsacaliy denied, in fi | Soe ageotdstcerbith sy hat appears “i a the ‘indo / % ‘Sikh | eigtom, and ‘the equally u Houlted rights of « a ; ‘the .Sitpreme Soernment ; and 4n the others where ae oe the dlaint of the Sviddivs as against Government , oc: ¢ ras refyised, -althéugh it had before been allowed : = ¢ oe jn the same family, eS a \, : - : ; sai gute of Mane. : 58. “The oun Bhhaeear: whiclf és the ' “Baie De fei, Aan referred "to, nay be considered first. Sirddrs a. pene es Bhanga ‘Singh and Bhag Singh cuaeae ‘Phane- ¢ Ee ce sar from the Qhais of Kythal, in the latfer part a " of the eighteenth century, and, divide the territory : ee. . between them, Bhingg Singh taking three- fifths oe fe and Bhag* Singh, two- ‘fifths. " The * latter Rindse Sea ‘left’ fouw * sons, three of whom died childless, cand oS “the whale estate came ab pdssession of Symiyat | . . Singh, tafe son’ of thé youngest, ‘wad died ift: 1839, | <% [5 oe when thé oe lappei to Government? ‘ . 8 | “ “There was; it is ytite, in this: instangp, po hear ¢. ‘ collataral, who ‘could havé Seccoated, exgept Os * Bishan Singk, aéscehded from an illegitimate sen. « OF Bhanga Singh?” and congeqhentlys" incoinpgtewt | ‘ 3 to ‘inherit.’ The only fesitimdte ’ son of Bhanga ta eid Btn BE‘TO ste CHIEFSHEPS: J, .> +» 7, BEF yy) js : ; ) ) re > » | Sinel atl died, syithont: issue, and, his share of bas gee Be, terr itory ps. in the hands of his widows. "Yet the, Gye » widows of Jamiyat Singl? were not pershittted, Lo a ee ? »,° See cert a succeeds: Th letter of Ma, , Seeretary es oe = of the “ist e October, 1832, , gepbainsthig repsons 2 a for sesu nuts the) management ~f the sag —' « ) > «F , é S Ts appeared’ to the Vice Pretideng in Council’ os 5 » “to be clear that the chielshig did ‘pot helong toy ay 2 ‘§ another: party, antl that, idee an “equal division - ‘of the territ Jey among” the four claimants, the» oo > » ehs sfohip would ‘be abepshed, or rather ‘Bhat the...% ‘ British Government wotld nave fo exercise the . ° es, a ‘duties of chief, wit oe any resource toomaeet, the > >” £* necessary poe om that acpouAaty ” ’ Q ; ~ The*Vice » President i in Council theyefore agreed ; that “the widows of the late ch: ck should be allowed 2 ; ) er) ao oS 8 provision out Bee he revenues? of the estate, equal 3 aye ee “to the highest amtownt receiv ed by: ‘any OF ig 2. 9 ° : a , > > : ‘ widows of onl chiefs.” eee ohne ; a) ) a , ’ a 3 2 a ’ —< > Theo chiefship of J bing »was alowed to revert, Phe difference be- = » ’ tween thir case and to 2. Pace » as if Ht had. been private prdgerty, er LT , > »%& alone. ait the te Tipory left “sy ‘Jantiyats Singh, oe the widows _ boing set aside On. poe grounds 2 ) y ! “was Ss small, tinal gre eat in¢gnrenienge could ay d a » ’ have arigen frondpits’ division among shits ’widbws. was eee tS4 ey Leathe Bs LAW OF ea c ° Z ¢ ae go ‘ yWith far greater ieee flax. Taina ‘melt they, ‘‘ = pe eS hate urged that therestate éhould covey ve accord: ee ing, tothe ordin mary rutes of succession. The J hind , ee = eee chief We beef aedepertdant of the ‘Muhamntadan ( - by oe Binge Pg Delhi, payipg tribute, and punished : < : «when hg failed to td so. The elfiefs « eof Thanesar, ; Ze eon the contrdty lad conquer edtheir territofy from . its ‘ghd _pessésgors’ by ¢heir own sw ords,*they had | ae “Cheen indepentdertt¢ from the fifst, and, had never : o 6 ,_ padéribute to any power, wiftil jbagugtit under the ‘, Oe sy eahe of the British Government. Nor had . © ‘@ ‘the widows of Tamiya Singll to go fax for prece- ‘ dents m support of their glajma, jwhen ae widows — Bee, of nae Fata h Sing of, Rattan Teour and Chand. « ° Kour, were ae in posstssion of Bhanea Singh’s & e . e share of this very estate. « ‘ ; «~~ « ® e e ‘ 7 @ e « € € « <«€ & @e e..%. ‘ e ) The escheat. of * * The" edcheat of Buria, oT rather of that portioh Biria fas of wome- * . ¢ what the oo of it had by Sirdétr Megh Singh was somey a ace = 2 ay ” Similomre ato that of pear ‘The chief ‘died In © A 188d, wiht en Sir. Geopge Clerk ‘assuneed clfartge of soe ° * the stake for Govefnment, altheugh the deceased . ps * 7 iy ett two Wwidows* Ft is, however, true that ss : ¢ ‘Megh. Siggh had reffudiated tlese Jay lies, “whosé oe. SY : characters were fhdifferent, anti desived*them to be vs Z ; excluded, nét onh” from inherit\nce eh evén frof~i e rodfint oninée, : : J : °TO SIKH CHIEFSHIBS. ba a 5c . ’ d $ : » iB) ) ‘ ; = : ) > ; a s see + pe 53. °The cgse of Firozpur will ae } Tre & ) ? dozpury t 4 7 a & 4. Ta x : b nha LU fig x po) 2 ) ) > ) 2 ? 4s ; Me Pe Ace eek : British Geyernment bad hoe intention ofan 1703 the ol sth of co 7 24) Zz succeed, > 7 ys 9OL, } ) oe tn ee ae 4 | 3 Oh: , taining, °under ail circumstances, >the righ > > > ; : ee d . \ collaterals. : Sans? ; oe y ) ) ’ e ) De» ~—» ? e » Sirdar Gusbaksh Sipgh,?” > > : Q : qd “ 1828. ) > a e / ego pal > > 71 as g eae ‘ a ™ - yey ) » Dune Singh. Dhana Singh. Surmuky Gutgh. Jai singh : diy Ee ) | 5 > “d. 4818 Ri) = Seren ye See So ae 9 a é e cCaner ee es a. | : 0 , : » ae >» Bhagel Chanda Jhanda gs 58 a, — Singh, Sizga. Singh 2 err ee , : a, 1826. o 7 . 2 , dy . »® } oC a ) € ) : : | 2 = uy p a py oD? aT ve : Es £ 3 ¢ we Se ate 4 Sirddr Gurpak’sh Singh Was a follower and 9 t . 2 \ : ts re tt 4.1, oD 1; 6 tc ss 4] mm P7PeZ ee * tion of Sirdar Gujas Singltythe leader of the great» tl i : { } Ce > rr} * AVAL ] 2 WYNVV TOW rh ° Bhangl colifederacy, and conquered Lirozpur, town AS i >» and territery, in 17 12. » By, his three wives he -had ° > gi: o panel > © Cl cy tax PS food en f CO # » =a @® 2 > oe four sdns, among whom, in ‘she, A qi 7 @ e e 3 e FR — 2 ( Bie 1. ty eee 5 3 . i > divided bis territory, To Dana Singh, the eldest, > 2 J ye Ri av yD AYt Y yo L he assigned Sitdraghar and Dadian, nh ri of the % : 4 , 7 : = Rs q : a ~ Satle)?; to Dhana Singh, the secopd, he gave a ) = 3 a 2 and territory ,of Firo,pur, to th ) ’ 0 . ® 3 . ) ° oO 9 Be aS cann oc 44 ayVA" T-] \ + Ph? lej; $0 the third’and fourth sons, Surmuy,, Singh’ >, d @ De HD S one Eo Gi, ow j= ) ae 2 2, a oo ee , WE avon Nn cre cps ye } and -Jhi Sijgh, he allottey” Sanjixa arg, Naggar . ? i> , respectively, north of the Sa { | 9 2 ° d ) fs ac De re a > ana Q\5, oy pivah for himself. In 18238,, Sirdar Dhana DAN gh é 1 , ] Yh7 8) yee 4 4 a 4 y r i j a % b, 1, hy ‘died, withoht istug, and was stcceeded by his widow ‘ » Gai 3. ; ) eet 3 Mai Luchitan Kouy iv the possession, of Firo a ; 8 & . 4 > % ay a eS ee d en “nh 1820 shes procgeded on a pigtimage> tO Gya, » yD ; » > S ; ; : 3 OER ON ee a aan and Bhagel Singh, 4on of Yuna ings, ene | ; = > » > > a - ’ > a 5 \ SO ee ’ lateryls to oth t mene mho refuse r@ « a 6 @ Rapp e S THERIFANCE et = A OF IN Hees : : SAT! 7S ex . Neue De ee a vantage, ot | nt o ‘ ° r ad ay ¢ he 'Rénk (Ae 9 k oY eo the LUC = “8.8 e e < £00 @ ‘ 4 e § ear . : B husk pana, " Arent OF oj . e ® = “OT CX AY a3 a S , ** Ths as ‘ < ‘e erintene- ‘ ° 6 % % ® ce apy itor : itv Supwer ; e.% ; See. the “te rr e Deputy Suz °6 os aS ae € th ae eee : Lahore | roe 7 : to Captai radressed th © Brg a o appealdd to LO i ee HO aAuUere — ee mt” aipealed Silch “affairs, ah ling Bhagel Sing ° ° “e f” Sik Cart = reeal Ne Dilda- 1 eyed, ie . Ee sega | Maharaja, orn | ae DULY, = we Le the giab Soe ih Alig] * ws -_ <= Cotrft’ ghey a aaa who, 1 if note assis- _ ° ee . his serviae, € ysent 1f MO0le é . ; vho wasn ith this OBS . + aes Was e @y i a « 1 W1tD - ae @ Wile ’ ‘€ . le thé «raie Sey of thé — > ®’ - cy CG mM ade i +] ) 1@ rls nt ee é a} +) {F for ee eee hat th parateda oi 6 @e @- 2 ed. t 2d ae an Sepat CHL @ tance,sdeclar Saat ee Share se] - ae LATEC Ly 16.7 dine a z A é e 6 @-. s ] PS MOfsaI oO a fo 4 ne ce @ * ih F Cc 1S ae = ea ee deteasih . Chanda Si ‘rma ee < * hot Hse "Se sof S% : his the Son . e Rut, alive, as e e oe sa Ww areata ‘ e . nN CE Gls . wO "BS ° « a e ; Secs i ‘chi ay ssal of tke Attari wala | 7a se Sill a é | PS ta hes claim e. ly#1888, prefewed th nee on Jp y ‘ Ae a Y A, Cr ge & Agen 7 G 2 ge Gens ~ t x tet a &0¢ inherit, to © inherKj sHIfs ; a > » AON : : PG) RE CHIEF ‘SH IPS, \ 2 > > Xe 8 > » the S{ipreme Got erfirient, and wae déoNed a pees so." ee the elaimbrsts. The lettey of the Secretary: vor G d , >» vernment, of the 24th? ae e 1838,. yas" topt fhe» S E following effect — PS es > : > do : — »D ? ‘ a,” — «The ce jaimonts are ‘desedntlahts of Dina Sipgh, ; : fe af ? * to Shou. his’ father Grirbuksh pingh °asé mee % S d ** possess 1onseohi ‘the northern pank ‘of the » = 9 > 7a bw ad “making over to, hi second , Son Dhana Sins A or Firozpu pqnd i its lands as 3 separ ateyalldtrhent , an os > a djst Stinect inet constituting, acpmrding te? , = ‘ the’Hindu Law and” SikA, customs, two separate ? , ? . - 2 ‘and distthet families. : a es > 2 ? (oN oe d 9% ) on On Ditaza Singh’ S a this separate: d por- - s «6 tion of Gurysaksh Sing th’s Acqua es3me into : possession of his Wwifs Lathman Koux, and, on her > ; "yy ww & oe decease, la } apsed ag. one of the Protected, Sta fen tO-* y? 5 > > > => the Be Goverament. Get ae : % e es ert ’ “The nephews of, Dhana Singh bave cleasly , ae Oy. 9 > ‘94 : >’ ‘* nopeght {to the> separated spertion of %, heir uncle, as 3 and gaat “claim t to ib is ‘disallowed ac accotdingly 9 2 yes ” 3 s The decis eae af Go- >” @1. This decision way pndoubtddly invaee OE sernment in Fibs ogse ° : would aso have dp- 3 a» : yee : “= ce with the ackpowledged law. regulating SUC-3 7 lied to the Sa Shii nd. session to’ Sikh States; »but? its argument® woul ea a » ’ aye &pplidd wit equal if not ‘greater force t — the, 2 ease of’ Jhind, yhich had been devided ia the > ’ vo & ° feasead € | 9"The lapse@e’ the . Kythal State, on the eigath of Bhai dat Singh. » ° .t0 obtain a e There, the pri nepalit t & ¢ 5 ae é ¢ SEC UNG C@usi1 ' sepatate afd Meee from t é Chap: ‘Singh, ‘th randfathter ou ‘of the J hind Seas ychad fondled € a State, altogether sepnraté from that . De su .ocession. té which was governed S if a gain sepa- cand ‘not be this, Kardm hig Lb OL t kl ie e e €. f, absol rately and enthrolf from the, Site tna had founded the ind lenepdent < Bazidy py 0 that.on the death of his e Badrika pe devolved on the Sar rip Singh, "of Paid . San eae Singhy was held to not capes on what e nepltews of t » ohties of % cle le @! The only satisfactor$ ws to be" tIfat, ia “the leat ingate esclieat, but the Buti ish net did no ‘diveck aman nage pment, of the priftipality: of hind, ‘while posjtior, which they brad Ir ng desired. Both cases, . Go ots yis sh to agsiime tle e Fitozpar 1 was \ a Lit Sa milité ary post. » © . oe nmeht, t, ox the deft h* of ela lapsed tO *G Jey | ar ne e ‘ thé wear 1848, « ae of e ve ny. weTO SIKH CHIEFSHIRS. )) ) = eS > . 9 2 -> Singh?’ The pripcipleyWhich governed: ‘pis esch, an OO Ste ds?» eo = : > "was paainty pie laid dawn, “im 1837, with stanctied oo Aa > > ae ; 9,0 iL e€ succ = n U a, RO, foe Pe, ez _, to the suxcessio of Jind,” end there wo} le bé, x , 2 3 2 > NS necessity to anude to it here) | na ot the Pracsies ed ee D ». of the Bhaikity family,, od the precios o% the oe - > >» Kakrala case, seemed to oo some clayéa,, to a > ; ? 2 collate’ ‘al_to succsed to ° all thes pbssessions, of + d 2 ao ‘ s Re arless inemBers obthe familys. 7% 22.7% only oe a 9 > > eo : , rs 5 oy co c oe > > > ) es ». 2D “>. RHAI GURBAKSH SINGH. ?- 6 So s ? a 2 > > ee | > 2? . : > : po es am ene ee 3 > ae Desi Sing}, Takht Sijha » Budha’ > - @ Singh. d. 7s.” »Sisgh. Singh. Singh. : ; . 7 g | Oe ee Mai Karam él » Behal Girdit Basdva ? ae ? @ ? Bhégari, Gingh.»s ete » Singh, Singh, inth, * . > $1, 1818, d. 1810. » 4.1818 4.1783. 4. 1800." d. 1822. , a . @ > > 2 0 4 ‘ : > .. oF iets 5 Re »bartab Xingh, Udai Singh, Panjab Singh, ’Gulab Sangat oi : > ® d. 1823. ® d. 1843.» died 1836. @ Singh. ee > 2” — ee Sd ~___3— 2 ih, 2 "9 The Kythal family. 3 Nea dhe Anowli family. 2 ee ‘ . @ ® <~ @ Sais . J ae : _ >» : > ae, > ©@ = or . ) > TAPdecision in thie, 63. On, the deq te of Bhai "Udai Singh; saa apae falloed fhe rule in at OWR Os - 1843, the only claithants of the estate were »Bhals “oda in the case. > of Ay nd. ” Guldkié Singh ° and ‘Sangat »Siigh; the »vhiefs of ae Si-O , Arnovli,? who, tor three. per raiioas hod one ae separate fr from Nhe’ ’ Kythal “branch » of *the family.” rae The two Widows, of Udai Singh» were, ungbt the . = *. SS sopdop of @svernmertt ef 1837, excluding: females» a @ ie >» oF »» from saccestfin a Kythal fate, « 4nconipetent ! > ° 99 oe A Sas o inherit, 7D ° oe ae ° ) ;ove e é & ‘58 < LAt@ OF INHETITANCE = ® e 4 ‘ t 4 ra 2% ® : fie es pee. + ‘The ae laid downs in ‘the Jhing case eee etnd . e « a ee Wag TOtpveed | in that* ‘of” ey tliale the rey of the @ « e. as Atgovli pranch to succeed “to tdie acqui sitions ofe . ¢, . f = aye « oe 9 fhe common ances Or, ‘Bhai Girl aksh Singh, was e @ a J € ‘ asindlitdg, end “ll, aaa Ace Us 5itions *were % “decl lane to. foye laffsed to the British “Gover nment. : . « .@ e~ 2 « =< ‘ tbhis deqjsion vas y recesyed with great, “diss satis « & e : “A : © “< . faction by the.Cis-Satlej Rajas, and, in Kythal ee e : € the mother o& the deceased eel 9 QW: gptan con- 6 @ @ <" ry e € ‘ : ‘.e %e ¢*siderabhe,ability, an@ who hadd been e for years the i a of € RES - 7 e., = @., [oy a : : ~~ virtual ruler of oe: SijNes attempted to bifpose it e. eo, q . a : : -* by force. The Bhai of A rnowli was not so fortu- ¢ nate as the se Oe Baxidpur ; efor® Gufbaksh * e «4 ae | Singh, the foursdet of the: ie had conquered e€ ¢€ j wii, ¢ 2 but little territor Yee, and.all the important acquisi-’ « € e : © ras 1 14 : ‘ tions, fad been made by. Bhaig Desi ee ‘and Lal ‘Ne, « «6 « Set ; eo) © ° - Singh, jnd consequently Iipsed to Governments e e é “By : e “ : ny . < ,«-« Bkai.Gulgb Singh , *stippdrteg, by the Mahi- ‘ of eee : ' : eo raja Er tidla and tke Rajas ‘of, Napha, and: jhind, * ©. e “we 3 * “ ¢ — insisted tn hig right « £0 the whole territogy owned e : e = e é e « «a « - by Bhai U jdai Singh. —* wore oS a hee ee: 8 z : e ¢ e : gf ° =o e « e ¢ 1° e,, % 1 € « a" aq. « he practice of 1B. The , practice which hdd “prevailed in , the “Bhaikidn seemed te ie Coe gs ‘ a? : fasour the rights of family, ‘: and “whieh, inetritth, was but viqlencd, collaterals. @@ a. “e ax a . Oppos ed to Ig w, sdémed to give set eolour’ tg ths e e , —- @eé ¢ @ e; ‘ 5 dim, ital Givbak sh Singh fj Vide d his territory- > @s Karam Singh to hér jusband?s Sai to be > D5 os eo: > set aside i in favour of Bhai Pyrtfib > Singh, a distant ~ } Lo? syided | ane the patri imony, but? in 18 308, jit vi as S found ce ) > th at Bhai Lat Singh, vshon? § Sir David Ocl nie ele ott, >, = ( letter 15th oN eeu ae 1h). belitved to | he yive , ; , OM received oly one hundred villages éjfrork, idgaf her, x > > e a . 2 > > ’ a , (ahd this was a most exag get Sota Was > : > » emong his ysovs, who each | Bde c/ 7 ni master*of thé whol, territory, with eo eXCs aption » , 2 +2 Z a +4 of oa smal portion held nS his qausias ie angi y : . = > Singh and, Basiwa Singh. He. aid elther,suc ead: es aa or iakeny posvessiox of almdst all that his os ) 2, uncles Takht ‘Singh’ and Bidha ‘Singh dnd his. ae as *» cousin G&urdit Singh nad4ow ned. Mot was the’ ~» @ > pu ~S 2 > {. 2 >> claim of the Arnowli branch weakened by the fact * > , ? that althouglt the Sas Government ‘had, .in : : 3 2 2 d 1811, a admitted the clint ft “o£ fhe? W idow of Bhai ; > > 3 ~ onger than that of ‘the adu isjit Bhar lal § meh, = | 7 ( that on her death, 4n 1818? y had, Winwed a a hg om © Zin, OW vatiidafouatll right t@ claim he es scheat, to be | 2 5 29 , Se Ze collater al.’ > oe ? 2 5 : » 2 2 a) > . oe os ws , 2ihe claint of Bhai Guidtb Sinch,° of Arnowli i ; to the Kyt hal brinctpalit “was jjustly disafléwed, “ ao but , what, "he recefved of thts possessions, “ot ie oe ancestér ‘Bhar Guxbaksh Singh, ‘he word edrtainly ay 9% not have ‘obtairtet dander ny Hindu Government, : o : » ® 9% oiS : i . " e € . Leo. . © . te NM paw/foF INHERITANCE Se = e ct. vr . ( ( A <6 chs he a Se fey . under the, Sikh Govéynment of Lah@re, to,° & & ore 6 : é ok ." 4° \ iy. t eee : 0» Mo °) ee ruled that: primogenifure was to be heb Loo provarW », >. 5° 5 ay. Ss 3 ee ae ye eee ha in the fowr States , of Patti ala, Ndbaa, Jhind awd , > so ae % d . a ne, a 47 —) > > vr . Kythal, and that, on failure ofson}y the nearestmale , Se ’ : ’ ee a ? a0 a ; heir should succped, to the exelysign ofderatlés;a +4 5 : > 2 a ! 5 > > collateral, ho wever, possessing’ a right to ny more> > > : 5a e y 2 2 than hitd been Held bY the « commons atestor fyone ° a a? De ~ whem he devived his clam. Tie Coitrt of _ Dire O28. 2 ee os ° tea ) ° y Ia . Sree a “ ie : - ors, in the same year, extendetl the title. of the ag collateral to atl ushe? r po osst sion s which had‘n6t_ . — yee 8 a ot y 2 2 Dinca , been acauired by grant, fron the Bi British, Govern: : 2 a s > = : ment or its predecessors. * poe gs? > eo. 2% — 2 ; fa RP f = e Eee P Qt Et a ep ees Gel < ‘ *:- 7 66.5 x 1951, on the mption of the Board’of Rules laid down by 9. - fl : Barrens aD “1 pL ~» “Administration, “the St ipreme Gor vertment sanct regarding collatey ee SUCCESStON tO p ° ) j 8 7° D> ; = hares n the > > tioned tbs following rules regarc ing. éoNlateral here he = ss 9 ay v “J *> » e ¥ = a ° 2 ‘Ne ON ® a, uccession to pa fe shares in the Cis*Satle; ; ya ? > v > } " v e = 0° =) £ 3 x ; e) ~—) / Sta ses; includiig ah pnost 4ll the msnor chiefships»—2 > > . Sep 5 ae < % > = © = 2 a 2 » 2) ) ln 4 3 7 _» _ ° 4 = ) §* Your Boasd haveysrequested that a distinct 2 ae ee ® ~~ ® - ; 2¢ 4 os Gere oe : —~ i ew v »w ta) es) = a* yule” Should be laid down .by the Government, » - . ~ © v ) » c r ° e ) e eB ee v yp ae ae J a respedting the successiongo auch shares on whith =. ~ € wy ° 3 4 ») » » * © - 5 ) = conflicting déyisigns ns have” hitherto been given by . s @ : oS) © DD» © © 0 g 7 ? > a Bs x ») oe “ 12? SS seu 1 12 k = ~ : S the seyeral officers in charge from time to jme? ee 2 p) o» 0 z d) ) 2D e e 3 é 0 ya ) MS i ‘i > : ae s ae aS carefuls cen isidera ution of thee wnole » | = ) 0 ) ) ‘. . ) } AD pimaAt s Bexrhin| haxra »Y ° question’, attied by the ea nts J which” have , = s ) 0 SP ary) ) ) ») p 4 OF - = w > ) i | 7 ’ ay recently sbeenAI MARA SUCCeS K JUQ@ould arise in the p VV: 2 C sf : a CY . ra TAat AV e Yow p\Board state, In) re ply to a questsol you, thatjvou cdngider it | r th 9 ’ > ) fl s ae x PP rn ‘ C » the majority of cases J =I 2 9 e ee s } 2 co ae oa anc . * * Lordship does not see any n eae aA yee be dete dsupon ‘its own ~~ greal aavanrsage, ve,de term ined» oP a8 OWDs, Dd. J 3 J # 4 5 ze ° %2 me 2 << a ‘4 ese S f > ~ 1A 1 : sd * meréts a8 ifarises. His Bogdsip would, how- ) > > : 8 ; ) >. * ever, pemark bite: y y cons’ xleration of the y y a = > $ eye 4 > e s¢ eystom of families sl wld have a preponderating ) : > ® é: inflaience in she decis¥o nt such cases, 9» °. ok ae oe J 3 fie Vis “Though the 1 rule’ no may, yD ) : * “hea t tarifnce wih the» course Vy been : : ‘- (As: oa ee ‘¢ actu any takew, in’ many cas e8, the *» Governor J ‘eo Sau 4 2 p>? a et ae : > “ = o ~tQ females, who, since 4808.9, ‘have sueceeded : ¢ C € : : 6 q SS : € . ¢ ( 4 € 3 5 — © = a pb yt } Fue 5 ip & ‘ : c to shares, unless they ghould:-ha've sa suc ceeded with 4 C @ G : « < C € ( 2 (c c , 1 Sea aul eas € CN 4 c « the knowledgé and ganetion, or uhder the or ders, C ¢ C as Lh 5 Seg: a4 See ane oe : ( | . C tne } ot 1Gal A rent c ( ; Cue GO : Ga = a ¢ 7 & ¢ ¢ ¢ Cc c ¢ ( é A >¢ \ bes oe : ee (3°) That the offeial ands ‘ecoriied declatation @( a ( « \ } —_ x 7 i “ t A \ i) Or the. *Oaltlcas Agent as S to tite person in *ossegtion ’ c ar : ~ t e { 7" cy = _ ma ¥ an { , t ae p y 35 € 7 ¢ f ( f @ = Ae + on in ©61868.9 shall ve atcepted withat: question, ~*~ Cc» Cc : E © ¢ eSs10N Cd ntinged a accardimely .« €c ‘ (4) g ce , 3 i SIKH CHIEFSHIPS, gen ) > ) ) a a c a 3 ! ay That? alfé nations s by a jacitldr o B,pattin 7: > -° oes 4 ®5 5 dar; “of hortions of his holding, stl azither be +3 Se a) > Officially recognized nor offidially récordgd:. eS | > nay eo i ) « PS That one or “niore 'sOns of ap cmmda we *> D yy aneestor, in possession ih 1808-9, eae ebtit lad to the whole share possessed by sugh gomuon ance S=” > tor, shall be, held, ‘andsbe, declared, responsi apie fae thers, who, liad sphey olived, would haye sha red with > *such Sen or sans, se » ” eS ee ® D1) > Sag 4) (83 That private éxchanges of, Tires during,” times past, be recognized, ee that fraudulen ee > ,, stent be’not*establishtd. » oe ; » o (7, That parties who have had no Hpecified > pos Ysession since 1808-9, have no yalid flaim either °, e ) ) 9 0 E ’ » ¥ a ) ge =; share or pension» os geet 283 Be DSS » : 4) = ) ee {8:) That the Se ettlement Officer,”ayi he Civil side, shall take: ce égnizhiice of claims to Recovely™ +, the maititenance of widows. left by» deceased ee ge of shas eS of which the clawmants’ payehave been = wrongfully dispossessed, ‘sub ect tothe pro VuslOns © oe We statute pe Limitatjots, eee oe » ene "95 That the xenquiry wg! not extend intd _ spgssgssion®? of the zafidérs or 2 pa ‘oP ae = ® ® ¢ in ndividaal - ‘Sirdar during the alifegiine vf such mats 32 a , e °s “9 Sirdar, ° oe . 5 . 2 2 ww : rte o x TOR. > oJ AL €) 3 > a> 2 5 : i) 3 , 95 a? ® . ; ) “| ; ) > \ ») 2 ) 8s > aS a, > & ) » ; a) > > BS a ae —_) uD) zy > By ~~) 4 > OD iy y > ) D2 = SS Dig 2 2 D 9 Pc %» B a . ” Zz ; 4 ; ne) ys D) o©™) =i.) * 4) > 4) : > a = os ‘ \ Sa oye 2 => Dd - a 2 = a, 9 2 ? d . 9 > 99 . —; > 2 > s ies 4 ;wot eal r} ¢ wD ¢ tS ° he UC@earule 1S were accG ae } aL leer. are aoa i who had heen in’posse A = ~ + 699 Meanwhile a n arisen cD | 4% ~ rs 2 i> oO ; 4. how far a subsequent decrease in the revenye ee resumed estatS Should atie®t the penstonhs of ee fa Biles Laie hea ) i 2 ae ) } Fees 3 OF eo ] cy bre e@ been estimat &® dart widows, and it was ruled” that the pension ® e e f +> — > ) : é D : EF: a eel x oy ) 2D. : ) : = re 2 hietecti te ua A cae = » eo of the estate, Which, was subséquently , i iscove ered ~~ ; ; % @ @ 3 } e 2 e @ % @ tochave beer over-sstimased. , ve -9 : ss € 2 - ~ - > > ® » A » e @ 2 : 2 ’ ° ? ~~ y aa £ : & > ) >» oe ¢ ws Le A, - 5 ; } 7 ; he 7 1¢ ‘Re! of ndan- (0. ,A change in the spdlicy’ £ fovernment, ,. SB OF AOR ‘% oe se p 2 0 @ tion Bnceded to she’ ee A wat | ea 42 “ 3 bealtens, principal oNiefs, with reference tg escheats has, of latte years, ,takpn * pe a 2 > ° e ) b ¢ ay Pegi => 2) 2 A ) a i io t i AT 1s 2 - ey ° - = pase Witha desire tq see the Native Stated per- 4 4 By ® ? 3° * . > 4] SN WITATAYN) 4 ~ Yay © 4 Ty : ee petustac a, the Gavesnmentshas granted to thé move : > es ® > on. )@ 2 ~ a Adware r1g “938cn { e ac « 105.) i =} c a LAW | oF INEERIT ANCE. ee eee aoe ‘ : Lae | am Rss aS of qh ind ang. Né&bha on the th of May B60, oe: ua a8 £ cqurferrin on qhese diefsand their heirs S dor dyer, x . Rook ee witenevi male | zssue uticht facl, the right of adon- a Se a fing’ succasade frome among due descendagits of : eg oe es. “et the: Piitlyyinfamély. If, however, at. anya Fe. any = © one of these ries chiee: should die with out adopt- m Lie we y ine a a Successor, , then it would still be open t6 the. : 2 - © *. - igoceinaining chief in concert with ‘the Contmis- © . gioner or, Politicai “agent of the Bri tish. Govern: ee se mest, to select:& successof from amotie te members “ss si : ‘fof th e Phiikidn family, but 1 in el case, a naer and ea «. or, fine equal ,to pace ae the STOSS annual oe - 7 revenue of the State Was to ke paid. to the British ne“ ; os Gareraent { c Ee : ‘ K ‘ ‘ : a On gee March 1862 2, a Sanad ‘of a adoption Ga At e “WAS grated fo Raja Ranbir Sinshaot Kapérthalla, ie cy os and eur «-¢He same fant to tne’ Raja of Farid. - oe “© kot, thes& Sirear of Kalsia, (Rat Te} Singh, and Ve or e ite dar Shamsher Singh Sifidhants Alia. . ” the Si dent a 71. The Panjao ) Government. was _ ae BILONS —_ ahi: of: sustifuting, “if poss} ‘ble: the law of prinoze eni- estates. - ike ‘Sr, thes yaxlous ugages whith regulated a | oe . « ai tary's Succession te 2 conanest 4 aed ordinary’ § sagirs ee a jcldiamperpetuity. "Khe Gowe rwor Genowall (letter | cS Se 12th Muy, 1864 c) ageepaew ith, the Pangébs ‘Govern- . \ —_.* . ment ay primogeniture show Id, be ent zoura node . : i «*X B80 702 §71 is ns