Sunday, December 13, 2009

MAUNG TET PYO'S CUSTOMARY LAW OF THE CHIN TRIBE - 1884

By Maung Shwe Eik, Myook, Assistant Government Translator, British Burma

INTRODUCTION
I Reverence the three Holy gems, the Buddha, his laws, and his holy congregation; I next reverence my parents, my teachers, and my rulers. Having done so, I will now compile a code of laws applicable to the Chins, and in this undertaking my efforts be successful and may this work stand permanently.
Should it be asked why the reverence is added to increase the bulk of the work, the answer is because it is the practice of all authors who undertake the compilation of any literary work to commence always by paying reverence to the three holy gems, their parents, teachers, and rulers, as a protective against evil consequences as also for the accomplishment of their undertaking.
So too commanders of ships, merchants, and travelers by sea, apprehensive of many evils on the way, such as bad weather, or a boisterous sea, or sea-monsters ready to destroy them, pray to their nats and saints to save them from these perils. The dangers vanish and they reach safely the end of their journey.
In the same manner authors who are about to write books, and wishing to get through their work with elegance, accuracy, and perspicuity, as well as consistently with the rules of grammar in order that no ambiguities may occur in the text, commence with the above reverence.
According to the belief of the Burmese there are 101 races of man on the face of the earth, of whom some worship a Supreme Being and some worship nats. The Milakkus (Mlecchas, wild races) are not like the races inhabiting large and civilized countries; they have no written books but derive their knowledge from tradition. The laws of the Chins, which form written books because the Chins, who are one of the Mleccha races, have no characters in which to write a book. Their laws have been transmitted orally, and my present work therefore contains these oral and traditional laws collected after thorough enquiry for my own information.
The traditional laws of the Chins should be recognized as valid although they are not in books. In support of this may be edited the following facts:
In the year 148 S.E. Gotama died; and in the reign of King Ajatasat, of Rajagrah, in the Majjhimadesa country, the first council or synod was held under the presidency of the venerable priest Mahakassapa for the purpose of rehearsing the laws preached by the Buddha. These laws were not then in writing but were merely committed to memory. It was not until the reign of King Vattagamani, 450 years after the death of Gotama, that his laws were put into writing on palm-leaves in Ceylon by an assembly of 1,000 priests and classified as the three books of Sutta, the five books of Vini, and the seven books of Abhidhamma. Taking this fact into consideration the laws of the Chins, although not contained in books, should also be taken as true.
Four hundred and fifty years after the death of Gotama the scriptures of the Burmese were written with the view of preserving the original syllables, lines and verses. My object in undertaking this work is also the same as in reference to the Pitakas. My desire is that these laws and rules of the Chins may not become extinct but they may be brought under the notice of the Government so that they may be given the force of law. In view of this I have consulted the lugyis (elders) and pasans (savants) of the Chins on the subject and have brought out the following pages.
Naturally no person, whatever may be his race or creed, likes his disputes to be settled by the laws of another race in supersession of his own law. Of the existence of Chin laws it is improbable that Government has yet been thoroughly informed because they are not contained in books. It being so, cases in which Chins are concerned are likely to be decided according to the laws of other races, a circumstance, which might be productive of displeasure to the Chins. Hence my object in compiling this work is to enable our Judges to decide Chin cases according to Chin laws and not according to the laws of other races, and I think it would be proper therefore to give validity to these laws.
The reason why this Dhammathat does not contain so many subjects as are provided for in the Burmese Dhammathats is because the Chins are a race which from an early period has been in juxtaposition with the Burmese; there is no diversity therefore between the two races in regard to most of their manners and customs, which consequently need not be repeated here. The object of this work is only to bring out such manner and customs of the Chins as are different from the Burmese. May this book be acceptable to all who wish to be wise and learned!


Chapter I
Control and Marriage of Women
1. Parents having one, two, or three sons, and an equal number of daughters, may grant each of the brothers the right of control over each of the sisters respectively. But if there are many sons and only one daughter, this right is retained by the eldest brother and will devolve on a younger brother only when the eldest brother waives his right in special favour of the latter: if there are many daughters and only one son, this right is held by the son.
2. If a sister after marriage becomes free from the control of her husband's family nat either through divorce or through the death of her husband, the brother, who had control of her before the marriage, is bound to take her under his control and support her as would her parents until her re-marriage or death. On the death of the brother this obligation extend to his posterity.
3. If the brother, his sons and grandsons, in contravention of the national custom, omit to perform the duties and obligations above described, the right of control shall cease and the right of intermarriage among the relatives shall be void.
4. If a married man dies, any one of his surviving brothers, who is not already married has the right of marrying the widow of the deceased. Why is this? Because if she, having children by her deceased husband should marry a stranger, the children would be placed under the control of that stranger and of his family nat, and would be deprived of their right of succession to the property of their deceased father as well as to that of their grandparents. This rule provides for the benefit of the sons and daughters of the deceased.
5. The above right of marriage exists if there be no children left by the deceased brother. Why is this? Because the rule is intended to preserve the blood relationship accord national custom.
6. On the death of a woman, the widower has the right of marrying his deceased wife's younger or elder sister, if any. Why is this? Because this rule is intended to preserve the blood relationship as well as to protect the children from being under the control of a strange woman and to prevent the property of the deceased from being alienated to a strange?
7. On the death of the son after marriage, if the father has no more unmarried sons, or he himself has no wife, he has the right of marrying his daughter-in-law, provided he obtains her consent. If she does not consent, she shall not be liable to pay a fine or to forfeit her property. If there should be no brother-in-law available for marriage, she may leave the control of the family nat and go back to her parents.
8. Hitherto there was no scale of valuation of articles given as fine or compensation by the Chins. Consequently much confusion was caused when matters of this description were brought into Court. The Chin pasans, or learned man, have been consulted on this point and the following scale of valuation has been laid down:

Sl. No. Name of description of articles Number Value
Rs. Anna Paisa
1 Name of articles given by way of presents Calabash holding kaung (Chin fermented liquor) 5 2 8 0
2 Hog (Full-grown) 1 10 0 0
3 Cowrie embroidered bag 1 2 8 0
4 Kywebya 1 0 8 0
5 Small da 1 0 4 0
6 Forked da (hngettawmigwade) 1 0 8 0
7 Bullock 1 30 0 0
8 Spear (peculiar make) Name of articles given by way of compensation 1 5 0 0
9 Gong, one cubit in diameter 1 30 0 0
10 Cymbals A pair 5 0 0
11 Silk sash 1 2 8 0
12 Man's silk jacket 1 5 0 0
13 Ditto head-dress 1 0 8 0
14 Mantle for shoulders 1 5 0 0
15 Slave 1 30 0 0
16 Women's jacket 1 5 0 0
17 Women's head-dress 1 1 0 0
18 Women's petticoat 1 0 8 0


Chapter II
Right of Marriage and Betrothal
9. Sons of a sister have the right of marrying the daughters of a brother. If the son breaks this engagement and marries elsewhere, he shall pay a fine of one bullock worth Rs. 30, as also cash Rs. 30; but if both parties are satisfied, a bag of cowries, valued Rs. 2-8-0, can be substituted for the above fine instead of the bullock. Should the woman not be satisfied, the above fine must be paid. If the woman should break the engagement and marry elsewhere, she shall pay a fine of Rs. 30. Should she break the engagement after the marriage presents have been arranged and after inspection of a hog's liver and intestines, she shall make good the expenses of the marriage ceremonies in addition to the fine of Rs. 30.
10. The payment of the fine of a bullock worth Rs. 30 should not be insisted upon by the sister and her son. In consideration of the obligation of her brother and his children to support her in the absence of a guardian, the said fine should be remitted. No fine should be taken even if their sons and daughters fail to marry one another, provided that they engage that the children of their sons and daughters shall marry one another; after which should the engagement be broken in turn by the grandson of the sister, he shall pay twice the amount of fine, or Rs. 60 to the woman because the engagement has been broken by two generations. If the sister's brother be living, a bullock worth Rs. 30 shall be given to him also. If the brother be not alive, this fine shall not be paid.
11. During the lifetime bf a sister and a brother if the son of the sister breaks his engagement no tine should be taken, provided a promise be made for the marriage of the grandchildren. If the granddaughter of the brother next breaks the engagement and the opposite party is in turn unfaithful, no fine should be taken, as there has been a breach of engagement on both sides. Let another promise be made for the marriage of the grandchildren. Shall no such promise be made the right shad not cease, but shall have the same effect as in the time of their great-grandparents.
12. During the time of their great-grandchildren If the great-grandson of the sister breaks the engagement and marries elsewhere, he shall pay a fine of three times Rs. 30, or Rs.90, as this is the third time of the breach of such engagement. If the opposite party is unfaithful, the same penalty should be inflicted Besides the penalty the expenses incurred in the preparation of the marriage ceremonies should also be paid by the party breaking the engagement. As the engagement has been broken three times, the right of intermarriage ceases and shall not be reclaimed.
13. After a man or a woman has each in his or her respective turn broken an engagement, and the engagement is again broken by the third generation on either side, the fine of Rs. 90 should not be insisted upon because 'the right of marriage ceases at this time. But the party breaking the engagement in the third generation shall pay a fine of Rs. 30 only, and he shall not take advantage of the right of intermarriage, which ceases with the third breach of the engagement.
14. If the children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of a brother and a sister have respectively paid and receive 1 a fine, the right of marriage ceases, after which, if this right is resumed, the previous fine, whether the whole, or a half, or one-third, shall be refunded. Why is this? Because the right of marriage is resumed after it had once ceased, and the offence previously committed is condoned when the right is renewed.
15. In engagements for marriages other than among blood relations a man who breaks the engagement is liable to pay to the woman a fine of one woman's jacket, one head-dress, one petticoat, one looking-glass worth 4 annas and another worth Re. 1. The scale of valuation of these articles has been given in the first chapter. If the woman is the offender, she shall pay to the man a fine of one man's jacket, one headdress, and a kilt.
16. Not only after betrothal but also is in the course of preparation of the marriage ceremonies (such as examining the liver and intestines of a hog), or after having sexual intercourse, the engagement is broken either by the man or woman, the party in fault shall pay the expenses of the ceremonies. A fine of wearing apparel merely is not sufficient, as the breach of the engagement is committed after the preparation of the ceremonies. If the man is in fault, he shall pay a fine of Rs. 30, the price of his body, to the woman; if she is in fault, she shall pay the man Rs. 25, the price of her body, in addition to the expenses of the said ceremonies.
17. After betrothal, and after the parties have lived together and the woman has become pregnant, if the man breaks the engagement let him pay a fine of Rs. 60; if It is the woman who breaks the engagement after becoming pregnant, she is not bound to pay a fine of Rs. 60 to the man. She shall pay him only the price of her body, which is Rs. 25, besides making good the expenses incurred by the man for the preparation of the ceremonies. Why is this? Because she suffers the loss of honour in her person.
18. If after betrothal among relatives the parties have lived together and the man breaks the engagement, he shall pay a fine of Rs. 30 in cash and one bullock worth Rs. 30, a full-grown hog worth Rs. 10, and five jugs or calabashes of kaung worth Rs. 2-6-0, and a kywebya worth 8 annas. If the woman is pregnant, he shall pay a fine of Rs. 60, two bullocks worth Rs. 30 each, a kywebya, a calabash of kaung, and a full-grown hog. If the woman be in fault under the above circumstances, she shall pay a fine of Rs. 60: the bullocks hog, kywebya, and the kaung are remitted. Why is this? Because a sister should not eat the pork given by a brother, because she should not accept the fine given by her brother consisting of bullock, hog, kywebya, or kaung; because the daughter of her brother suffers the loss of honour in her person. Owing to these circumstances a woman should be exempted from paying a fine, which consists of the said articles.
19. After the death of brothers and sisters, in the time of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, if after the parties have lived together the man breaks the marriage engagement, a woman cannot claim two bullocks, because the brother of her grandmother or great-grandmother is not living. The man who breaks the engagement in the second generation shall pay a fine of Rs. 60 together with one bullock worth Rs. 30, one full-grown hog worth Rs. 10, and five calabashes of kaung worth Rs. 2-8-0, also a kywebya worth 8 annas. If he belongs to the third generation, he shall pay a fine of Rs. 90. After breach of engagement in the time of sons and grandsons if a man be of the generation of great-grandchildren, he shall pay a fine of Rs. 30, one bullock, one calabash of kaung, and one kywebya. If he is in fault when the woman is pregnant, he shall pay Rs. 30 in addition to the proper fine.
20. If a woman when pregnant, or after connection, breaks the engagement, she is not bound to give a fine in addition to that specified (sic? the additional fine specified) in the above section. Why is this? Because it is unusual for a sister and her posterity to accept any fine given by a brother or anyone of his posterity. Besides she is entitled to a remission of fine as she has suffered loss of honour in her person.
21. On the death of the husband of a woman, a surviving brother of the deceased has the right to marry his widow, provided he is unmarried and claims this right within three years of the burial or burning of the corpse, when the ghost of the deceased is called by his relatives. If this right be claimed on
some subsequent calling of the ghost of the deceased, it shall be void, and the woman shall be at liberty to leave the control of her husband's family nat and go back to her parents and relatives with her children and property.
22. If when the ghost of the deceased is called the woman refuses to marry her brother-in-law, she is liable to forfeiture of all the goods and livestock collected during the lifetime of the deceased and to expulsion from the control of the family nat. If any children are left, their uncles may have them. But if the children do not wish to remain, or are unhappy under their uncles guardianship, they are not to be forcibly retained. If they should wish to live with their mother, they may do so. If no property should be left, it is not customary to pay any fine.
23. If after the death of a husband, before seven months have elapsed and before his ghost has been called, his widow marries another man, she is liable to forfeit all property and to deliver them to the brother-in-law, who has the right of marrying her, as also to pay a fine of a full-grown hog and five jugs of kaung to remove his shame.
24. If the widow of the deceased brother expresses her willingness to marry a surviving unmarried brother and if such brother objects to the marriage, he shall pay her a fine of Rs. 30, and this obligation shall cease altogether because he has no regard for his relatives and for his national custom.
25. On the death of a wife the widower can marry his elder or younger sister-in-law, provided she is unmarried, and if she is not so inclined, she shall not be compelled. The widower shall have the right of marrying other women, provided he begs leave of his father-in-law or his brothers-in-law. Whether or not a sister-in-law is available for marriage, he cannot marry another woman without first asking the permission of his father-in-law or his brother-in-law. If he should not ask permission, he shall pay a fine of a full-grown hog and five jugs of kaung (fermented liquor). Why is this? Because he breaks the national custom. When he asks permission the father-in-law or brother-in-law must give him in marriage with his elder or younger sister-in-law, or express disinclination and give him permission to marry another woman. If he is not given in marriage to a sister-in-law, he has the right of marrying another woman without permission.
26. After the death of a wife or husband it is not necessary to be particular as to the relationship of the persons allowed to have the right of intermarriage. They may be either the children of own brothers and sisters or of alien persons not related by blood.

Chapter III
The Right of Marriage with Others Allowable Notwithstanding the Right of Inter
- Marriage Between Relations

27. The daughters of brothers and the sons of sisters have the right of intermarriage. But if one party is not come of age while the other party is, the party who has come to puberty shall not be bound to wait for the minor till he or she comes of age. The law (of nature) that the person who is marriageable must marry cannot be broken. But in each case the consent of the parents must first be obtained and must be given. When permission is so asked a present of five jugs of kaung and a full-grown hog must be made to the parents. When permission is not obtained although asked for, the person asking it may obey his or her own will and shall not be held in fault. Why is this? Because the necessary permission has already been asked for according to the national custom. But if when permission is asked the brother should offer his daughter who has come of age in marriage, no other wife shall be taken on the excuse of permission having been already asked. Failing in this the customary penalty shall be paid.
28. If the daughter of the brother is marriageable but the son of a sister is yet a minor, and if the former is about to be given in marriage, permission must first be obtained from either the sister or a nephew (her son), who shall not object if there is no son among them who is marriageable. The permission must be given. If permission when asked is not obtained, the person asking may obey his will. But if permission is not asked according to custom and permission is not given because there is a marriageable male adult, the person in fault shall pay the customary fine if a marriage is made elsewhere.

Chapter IV
Law of Divorce
29. While a man and a woman are living as husband and wife, if the man for no cause tear off her hair, beats her so severely as to break a bamboo over her, or to draw blood, or to leave marks of ill-treatment, she may go back to her parents or brothers should she wish to do so. The husband shall have no right to prevent her from going on the ground that she is his wife. Even if the wife is content to stay with her husband notwithstanding his ill-treatment, her parents or brothers may call her back if they know that she is ill-treated, and the husband shall have no right to prevent them from doing so. If so called by her parents she is bound to go with them although she may say that she does not mind the ill treatment. Why is this? Because on the day of marriage the man formally promised her brothers and parents not to beat her in the manner above described.
30. After being called out by the parents the wife may have a divorce from her husband should she so wish it If while the husband is living with his parents his wife leaves or takes a divorce from him on account of his ill treatment, she cannot, since she has yet no property jointly acquired by herself and husband, carry away property which belongs to the parents of her husband. But if she can take away all the property given to her as dower at the time of marriage and at the time of her being placed within the control of her husband's household nat because she suffered ill-treatment at the hands of her husband in violation of his promise not to ill-treat her. If there are any children arrived at years of discretion, they may stay with whom they please. As regards minors, the mother shall have them, and the father shall be bound to support them. The years of discretion are fixed at seven years, or until a child is able to assist his parents in doing what he is bid.
31. If a husband beats his wife in such a manner to break a leg or an arm and thus incapacitate her for her work, he shall pay her fine of two slaves, worth Rs. 60 each, to attend upon her. He shall be divorced from her and forfeit to her all the existing property. Even if an arm or a leg is not broken, if the husband tears off her hair, or beats his wife so as to break a bamboo over her, or to draw blood, or to cause any other marks of hurt, and if when she was placed within the control of her husband's family nat he gave her property not amounting to so much as Rs. 30, the husband shall pay her a fine of Rs. 30; all the jointly acquired property both goods and livestock, shall be forfeited to the wife. Why is this? Because the man breaks his formal promise at the time of marriage not to use her ill.
32. If the husband beats his wife in a grievous manner as above described, and if the wife is still willing to live with him notwithstanding the ill treatment she received, the husband shall beg pardon from the parents or brother of his wife. When he asks their pardon he must also make them a present of a grown up hog and five jugs of kaung worth Rs. 12-8-0. If the parents or brothers are not satisfied with these presents, a bullock worth Rs. 30 must be added. When these presents are given the parents or the brothers cannot but allow their daughter or sister to live with her husband although they may still be dissatisfied with the presents. If their daughter or sister is willing to live with her husband and does not wish to be divorced from him, she shall have her will. Why is this? Because the wife is content with her husband.
33. The reason why parents or brothers may receive presents of a bullock, a hog, and kaung from their son-in-law or brother-in law is because he (the son-in-law or brother-in-law) has broken his promise made formally at the time of marriage not to ill-treat their daughter or sister and so has put them to shame.
34. If on account of the ill-treatment received at the hands of the husband the wife should (fie and if no compensation will satisfy her parents or brothers, the husband shall be punished according to the law of the land. Why Is this? Because they will take no compensation but desire to see him punished for his crime.
35. If while a man and a woman are living together as husband and wife, the woman is unfaithful and commits adultery with another man, the husband may, for her first and single offence, chastise her in an ordinary way with a small rattan of switch and he can take legal measures against the man who commits the crime. But if he wishes to divorce her, he is at liberty to do so, provided he informs her parents and hands her back on them. He shall not beat her in anyway that is grievous. In such cases the husband shall have all the property given by the parents of his wife as dower at the time of their marriage, all property given by his parents at the time of her being placed within the control of her husband's family nat, as also all the property jointly acquired by husband and wife during cohabitation. The wife shall not be allowed to take away even her nadaungs (eardrops) and padis (necklaces). She must go away with nothing more than the tami (female's petticoat) or thindaing (jacket) that she is wearing at the moment. On the other hand, if the husband is still willing to live with his wife on the ground of being it only her first offence, and is satisfied with taking legal measures against his rival, he may do as he wishes. And if a second offence is committed by his wife he has the right of breaking the string of her petticoat and of beating her severely and of expelling her from his home. The wife in such cases shall have no right to claim any property from the husband. Why is this? Because she breaks her formal promise made at the time of their marriage not to be unfaithful to her husband.
36. If while a man and a woman are living together as husband and wife the husband puts her to work which she is capable of performing and the wife refuses to do as she is bid and thus proves herself to be disobedient to her husband's commands, or if she quarrels with him without any reason, the husband has the right of chastising her with a small rattan or switch, and the wife shall not say that her husband beats her severely. Why is this? She is disobedient to her husband and quarrels with him so that he cannot forbear. After chastisement three times if she still persists in her disobedient and perverse habits, the husband has the right of putting her away with no other property than the clothes, which she is wearing at the time actually wearing. If he does not wish to send her away he may still chastise her. She cannot complain that her husband beats her painfully. He may flog her with * small rattan. Why is this? Because she does not reform herself even by being chastised. She is wicked to excess.
37. If a wife wishes to get a divorce from her husband for no fault of his, the husband shall give her a divorce, provided she pays him Rs. 25, the price of her body, and forfeit to him all the property given to her by her parents as dowry at the time of her marriage. Again, if a husband wishes to divorce his wife without any reason, he may do so, provided he pays her Rs. 30 the price of his body, and forfeit to her all the property given as dowry by her parents at the time of their marriage as well as the property given her by the husband's parents at the time of her being placed within the control of her husband's family nat.
38. If a husband takes a younger wife without the consent of his first wife, and the latter therefore wishes to be divorced from him, and if the husband be living in the house of his parents, she has the right of obtaining a divorce from him, provided he gives her twice the amount of the price of his body, namely, Rs. 60, in consideration of the jointly acquired property being little. But if at the time of her being placed within the control of her husband's parents, the cost of which exceeds Rs. 60 in value, she cannot claim the fine of Rs. 60. She shall have only Rs. 30, in such cases. Why is this? Because the husband breaks the fifth with his wife while his parents are still alive and while his they do not refuse to have control over her.
39. If a husband takes a younger wife without the consent of his first wife, and he and his first wife are living separately from their parents, the husband shall forfeit all the existing property to his first wife and be divorced from her and bear on himself all debts & c. But in case there is no property at all but only liabilities, which the husband has to bear on himself, the husband shall forfeit to his wife Rs. 30, the price of his body. The wife shall have no right to lay claim to any fine if the jointly acquired property is in value Rs. 60 or above (? under).
40. If after the marriage a husband calls his wife away, the husband and his parents are not entitled to keep her and the separate marriage property belonging to her more than a year without bringing her within their family nat control, and even for one full year if there is no pregnant woman in their house. If she is kept more than a year without ceremony being performed of bringing her within their family nat control, her parents and brothers are entitled to call her back to their house; she is also entitled to a divorce from her husband if 1 she should so wish; and if the husband objects to divorce his 1 wife on these grounds, the cost of the divorce shall be borne | by both parties equally and the separate marriage property 1 belonging to each shall be taken by the respective owners. Why is this? Because national custom has not been I performed. But if the husband brings his wife to his house I and does not perform the ceremony of the placing her within his family nat control although there is no pregnant woman living with them, because of an earthquake or eclipse of the sun which has taken place and in consequence of which the nat ceremonies cannot be performed, the husband shall be entitled to keep his wife in his house for any length of time without performing the said ceremonies. He shall not be held culpable for the delay and omission.
41. If after marriage a husband takes his wife away to his parent's house and the parents on their part take care of her under their family nat control as they would of their own children, and notwithstanding this care and kind treatment she wishes to live separately from them and asks permission of them to do so, she shall not be allowed to go away if they do not approve and if they have no other daughter-in-law living with them. They have a right of retaining her for any length of time. If then she leaves her husband because she is not allowed to live separately, the husband shall have the right of taking all the separate marriage property belonging to her and placed under the control of the family nat. She shall also be divorced from him on paying him Rs. 25 as the price of her body: should she not pay this fine, she shall not be allowed to leave or to obtain a divorce.
42. If after marriage a husband takes his wife away to the house of his parents and she is placed under the family nat control and the parents act parsimoniously towards her and do not supply her as they would one of their own children, and under these circumstances she wishes to leave them, she shall inform the neighbours three times of the treatment she receives from her parents-in-law. After which, if the same treatment is continued, she shall have the right of going away and living separately with her husband, who must follow her. The parents have no right to prevent them from leaving them on the plea that they have not done their duty; they have not treated their daughter-in-law as they would have treated their own children.
43. If the parents of a husband are bad and do not properly attend to the wishes of a daughter-in-law in matter of food, clothing, and expenses, as they would in the case of their own children, it is the duty of the daughter-in-law to give notice of her being so dealt with to the neighbours. After giving such notice three times, if the parents continue to treat her as before, and she is therefore inclined to leave their house but cannot get her husband to follow her, and for this reason she wishes to be divorced from him, she shall have all the property given her and the husband by their parents at the time of their marriage and shall obtain the divorce she wishes. If the marriage property given by the husband's parents and placed within their family nat control does not amount in value to Rs. 30, she shall have Rs. 30 also from her husband as the price of his body. Why is this? Because the husband has been indifferent to the ill treatment of his wife by parents. He may be said to have consented to it.

Chapter V
The Law as to the Performance of Marriage Ceremonies even if the Wife should Die
Before their Performance
44. If after a man and woman have married the wife should die before the solemnization of the grand marriage ceremonies, the ceremonies must be performed before the burial of the corpse in order that the national custom should not be broken. While the corpse is in the house the widower is bound in duty to give to his brothers-in-law a full-grown hog, five jugs of kaung, a cowrie-embroidered bag, a number of kywebyas, a forked knife or da, and he must also entertain them and solemnize his marriage ceremonies. If the parents and the brothers of the deceased are satisfied, even one small pig will dc. If they are not satisfied, one full-grown hog must be given. Until the marriage ceremonies are over the corpse must not be disposed of. Why is this? Because the tie of relationship is not to be broken. Because their descendants have to intermarry in succession.
45. On the death of a wife, if the corpse is so disposed of without the performance of the general marriage ceremonies as to dissatisfy the parents and brothers of the deceased, the husband shall pay them a fine of a bullock worth Rs. 30, also five jugs of kaung and a full-grown hog. If these fines are not paid, the tie of intermarriage among their descendants shall not be broken: it shall continue. But if these fines are not paid, or if, although paid, they are not accepted by the parents and brothers of the deceased who desire to discontinue the right of intermarriage among their descendants, this right shall cease. But if the parents and brothers of the deceased do not desire the discontinuance of the right and say that the fines must be paid, the fines shall be paid. Why is this? Because the husband of the deceased do not desire the discontinuance of the right and say that the fines must be paid, the fines shall be paid. Why is this? Because the husband of the deceased breaks the custom of his race.
46. If the parents and brothers of the deceased will not accept the fines paid by the widower because he buried the corpse of his wife before the solemnization of the grand marriage ceremonies, and desire to have the right of subsequent intermarriage stopped, the widower shall return to the parents and brothers of his deceased wife all the property given to her by them as dowry at the time of her marriage. But if the property is used or spent during the lifetime of the deceased, its return as aforesaid shall not be compulsory. Let the claim be null and void. Why is this? Because the breach of the national custom has wounded the feelings of the parents and the brothers of the deceased.
47. If the husband dies before the solemnization of the grand nuptials, their solemnization cannot be insisted upon. The relations of the deceased shall give to the brother of the widow the cowrie embroidered bag and the spear or dau, which he had used in his lifetime. If the deceased left behind no such articles, the sister of the deceased shall obtain them and give them as aforesaid, so that the custom of the race may not be broken. The brothers of his widow shall give him a silk mantle to cover the corpse as also to tie up the post used in the ceremony of calling the ghost of the deceased. If the relatives of the deceased are not satisfied, this gift must be made. If they are satisfied, the gift need not be insisted on.

Chapter VI
Penalty for Abusive Language and Assault the law for Assault among Strangers is the same as the Burmese Law and therefore need not be mentioned

48. If a son-in-law abuses his father-in-law or his mother-in-law, and the father-in-law is his maternal uncle, he shall pay a fine B Of one cowrie-embroidered bag, five Jugs of kaung, and full-grown hog. If he carries his abuse to excess, he shall pay a fine of one bullock worth Rs. 30. Why is this? Because he abuses his father-in-law, who is the brother of his mother.
49. It is no offence if the father-in-law in the capacity of a father abuses or reprimands in an ordinary manner his nephew son-in-law in order to prevent him from doing anything that is wrong. He has the right to do so. But if he without cause abuses his son-in-law to excess so as deeply to hurt his feelings, he shall pay a fine of a pot of kaung containing ten viss. A pot of kaung is worth a rupee.
50. If a son-in-law abuses his father-in-law who is not related to him in blood, he shall pay him a fine of five jugs of kaung and a full grown hog. If he is not satisfied with these, he shall add a cowrie-embroidered bag. This penalty is provided because the father-in-law is not a relation. He cannot have a bullock. But if his son-in-law abuses him to excess, then the fine of the bullock must be added.
51. If a stranger father-in-law abuses his stranger son-in-law, he shall pay him a fine of a cock worth 8 annas, a 10-viss pot of kaung worth Re.1, and a Chin turban worth Rs. 2-8-0, in order that the son-in-law may receive satisfaction. The fine of a bullock and a cash is not to be given in such a case. Why is this? Because the son-in-law is not entitled to enjoy the property of a father-in-law.
52. If a husband abuses his wife's brother who is a blood relation, he shall pay a fine of five jugs of kaung, one full-grown hog, and a bullock worth not less than Rs. 30.
53. If a husband is abused by his wife's brother who is a blood relation, the latter shall pay a fine of a cock worth 8 annas, a 10-viss pot of kaung, and a piece of silk turban. Why is his case treated differently? Because he is brother of the wife and it is not customary for a husband to take a bullock from his brother-in-law. If they are not blood relations, they may proceed according to the law of strangers.
54. If a nephew son-in-law strikes his uncle father-in-law, he shall pay a fine of a full-grown hog, five jugs of kaung, and a bullock not worth more than Rs.60. If the assault committed is so grievous as to cause a fracture or to impair a member, the assailant shall pay the penalty provided in the Burmese dhammathats in addition to that prescribed by Chin custom.
55. If a stranger son-in-law strikes a stranger father-in-law he shall pay a fine of five jugs of kaung, a full-grown hog, and a bullock worth not more than Rs. 45; if he causes him grievous hurt so as to cause a fracture or to impair a member, he shall pay the penalty provided in the Burmese dhammathats in addition to that prescribed by the Chin custom.
56. If a husband strikes his wife's brother, he shall pay a fine of five jugs of kaung, a full-grown hog, a cowrie-embroidered bag one cubit long worth Rs. 5, and a bullock worth not less than Rs. 50. If he causes a fracture of a bone, or impairment of a member, he shall pay the penalty provided to the Burmese dhammathats in addition to that prescribed by Chin custom.
57. If the brother of a sister strikes that sister's husband, he shall be punished with a fine consisting of a cock worth 8 annas, a 10-viss pot of kaung worth Re. 1, a piece of silk mantle worth Rs. 5, and a silk turban worth Rs. 2-8-0. If he causes fracture of a bone, or impairment of a member, he shall pay the penalty provided in the dhammathats in addition to that provided by Chin custom. Why is this case treated differently? Because a wife's brother will take care of and feed his brother-in-law's children in the event of the tatter's absence or death.
58. If a maternal uncle father-in-law strikes his nephew son-in-law he commits no offence, if he is in the exercise of his right of chastising him and if the pain caused is ordinary. But he causes excessive pain without any reason, he shall be punished with a fine of a 10-viss pot of kaung, a silk coverlet,
a Chin turban, and a cock, so that the son-in-law may receive satisfaction. The son-in-law cannot claim a fine of a bullock or cash, because his uncle has the right to chastise him. But if his uncle causes fracture of a bone, or impairment of a limb, he shall pay the penalty provided in the Burmese
dhammathats in addition to that prescribed by Chin custom.

Chapter VII
Sons & Daughters Entitled to Inherit

59. This section specifies the class of sons and daughters who are entitled to inherit their parent's estate:
1. Eldest son of a chief married wife (mayagyi).
2. Elder son of a chief married wife.
3. Younger son of a chief married wife.
4. Youngest son of a chief married wife.
5. Eldest daughter of a chief married wife.
6. Elder daughter of a chief married wife.
7. Younger daughter of a chief married wife.
8. Youngest daughter of a chief married wife.
9. Son adopted (thapyuza) under covenant.
10. Daughter adopted under covenant.
11. Waif picked up and nurtured as a son (kaukya, a foundling).
12. Waif picked up and nurtured as a daughter (kaukya, a foundling).
13. Stray coming of his own accord and nurtured as a son (pyawbaiklaya, one who stays of his or her own free will).
14. Stray coming of her own accord a nurtured as a daughter.
15. Stepson from a husband.
16. Stepdaughter from a husband.
17. Stepson from a wife.*
18. Stepson from a wife.
19. Sons and daughters of younger wives (mayange).
20. Sons and daughters from a concubine (apyaung).
The above sons and daughters are heirs to their parents* estate if placed by their parents in the family nat control, and if they continue under that control before the decease of their parents. Why is this? Because so long as their sons and daughters remain under their parents' family nat control they cannot succeed to any estate but are entitled to succeed only to the estate of their parents. If adopted children are placed under the foster-parents' family nat control they cannot succeed to their parents estates of their own parents; they are entitled, on this ground, to succeed to their foster-parents' estate.
60. The children named below lose the right of inheritance under the said provision:
1) The son and daughter born of the chief married wife.
2) Those born of younger wife.
3) Those born of a concubine.
4) Stepsons and daughters from husband's side.
5) Stepsons and daughters from wife's side.
6) Adopted sons and daughters.
7) Waifs and strays nurtured as sons and daughters.
The above sons and daughters, if they do not remain within the family nat control of their parents, or even if though so remaining they leave that control before the death of their parents, lose their right to succeed to their parents' estate. Why is this? Because they do not live with their parents nor support them, but leave them and enter the nat control of their families. The same rule is applicable to adopted children.
61. The ceremony of placing under the family nat control must be performed on behalf of the sons and daughters born of the chief married wife, or of younger wives, or of concubines, and of adopted sons and daughters, or of waifs picked up and nurtures as sons and daughters, or of sons and daughters
brought either by a husband or a wife, or of a daughter-in-law brought home by a son. It must be performed in the house of a father or a mother, or a father-in-law or a mother-in-law, and must consist of an entertainment of pork and kaung liquor. The person performing the ceremony must call their relatives and pasan teachers to be present on the occasion. The gold and silver ornaments worn or brought by the person on whose behalf the ceremonies are performed in a long bag, or in the long basket carried by Chins on their back, and must be laid next to the pork and other eatables which area being served up. The party must be then encompassed by a thread so as to include all the property above mentioned. The pasan teachers then pronounce certain incantations over them according to their national custom, and this being done the persons present on the occasion must partake the treat offered to them. After this ceremony has been concluded the children are admitted as being within the control of the family nat and as entitled to inherit the family estate.
62. Although a daughter-in-law is domiciled with the parents of her husband and the said nat ceremony has been performed on her behalf, yet she is not entitled to any share of their estate beyond what her husband is entitled to. She is entitled only to the share of her husband. Even after the death of her
husband if she continues to live with her parents-in-law and does not before their death leave the control of the family nat, she is entitled to the share of their estate. Why is this? Because a husband can inherit his wife's property and a wife is entitled to succeed to her husband's right.

Chapter VIII
Law of Inheritance
63. There may be an eldest son, a middle son, a younger son and youngest son, or eldest daughter, middle daughter, a younger daughter and youngest daughter of certain parents. The eldest, the middle and the younger son and daughters may all be married; and with the permission of the parents may all be living separately from them with their own house and chattels. The youngest son shall not be allowed to live separately although he may have asked the consent of his parents. He must live with the parents and support them in their old age. All the existing property, goods and livestock of the parents, the youngest son alone must take charge of. Other sons shall not take charge. The parents in their old age may be pleased to live with their eldest, middle, or younger sons. Even under such circumstances if the eldest son object to support their parents, the youngest son is bound to do so. If the parents have no sons but daughter only, she who is not yet married must take charge of their estate and support them. If all the daughters are married and the parents nave no one to look after them, the son-in-law who listens to the words of his parents-in-law must, with his wife, take charge of their estate and support them.
64. If parents die leaving sons of different ages, the elder sons are not entitled to larger shares in the estate. The estate must be divided into as many equal shares as there are sons and daughters, with two extra ones for the father and the mother. Beginning with the eldest brother, each must take a single share, the shares reserved for the parents being taken by the youngest son in consideration of his having supported his parents, or, in other words, he takes both the father's and mother's shares. Why is this? Because while the elder sons and daughters were living separately from the parents, the youngest one had to live with them and support them in their old age. Because, on the death of the parents, the youngest son must not leave the house so long as the corpse is still in the house. It is his duty to carry the "ghost post" (a post set up when the ceremonies for calling the ghost of the death are performed) on his head and to be watching near the corpse.
65. If both parents die leaving no sons but daughters only of whom one alone is married and the rest, a large number, are single, the estate of the parents shall not be divided on the ground of the death of the parents. The unmarried daughter has the right of taking charge of the estate. Why is this? Because at the time when the other daughter was married the parents had already, according to their national custom, given her the portion she was entitled to as dowry, and their duty of making similar apportionment to younger daughters when they get married is still unfulfilled.
66. If both parents die leaving no sons but all daughters none of whom are married, the estate shall not be divided. The eldest shall take charge of it and support the younger sisters; or the brother of the decease shall take charge of the estate, and if, while they are thus placed in charge, the sisters who are come to puberty take husbands, the uncle must give them suitable shares of the remaining estate, that is to say, shares must be reserved for those who are to be married. If there are more than one sister not yet married, the estate shall not be divided. Either the eldest sister or the uncle shall hold the properly in trust Why is this? Because when those who are now single get married afterwards it will be necessary also to make them gifts similar to the gifts made to those who are already married.
67. If both parents die leaving several daughters, all of whom are married except one, a sum equal to what was given to the other daughters as their marriage portion must be deducted from the estate of the parents and reserved for the unmarried daughter, and what remains after deduction shall be equally divided among all the daughters. If every one of them is married, the division must be similarly made. Why is this? Because they are not male offspring responsible as a youngest son, and they are the issue of the same parents.
68. On the death of parents the articles used by the father, such as firearms, spears, smoking-pipes and apparatus, gongs, cymbals, cups, trays, kywebyas, and cowrie-embroidered bags shall not be included in the estate for partition. The youngest son who supported the parents shall have them. Why is this? Because he bears the burden of his parents more than the others. He may also have his mother's jewellery, such as beads, eardrops or nadaungs, as well as her clothing. Although these may be retained in the possession of the youngest son, his wife or his daughter shall have no right to use them. On the occasion of performing the funeral rites of his parents, when he carries on his head the "ghost post" of the deceased, and his sisters are present making a presentation of pigs and kaung liquor, then the brother may, according to the national custom, make an equal distribution of these articles among his sisters.
69. On the death of a mother, if a son lays claim to the estate belonging to the deceased, and if the father has taken no younger wife, the estate shall not be divided. If the father has taken a young wife, all the articles used by the mother shall be given to the son. All landed property, slaves, elephants, horses, gold, silver, precious stones, all goods and livestock, shall be divided into two equal shares, the share of the father and the share of the mother, one share being taken by the son and the other share reserved by the father. Why is this? Because the chief wife being dead another wife is subsequently taken.
70. If the mother dies and the daughter asks her father for a share in the estate, it shall not be given if the father has not taken a second wife. If he has, the daughter shad have all the articles used or worn by her deceased mother. All the goods and livestock, landed estate, gold silver and precious stones, shall be divided into two shares and one share shall be given to the daughter if married, or, if she is still unmarried, the father shall take charge of her share to be given her when she gets married. The other share may be retained by the father.
71. If a father dies, so long as the mother does not marry again no inheritance shall be given although asked for the daughter. If the mother re-marries, the estate, consisting of goods and livestock, gold silver and precious stones, shall be divided into two shares and one share shall be given to the daughter if she is married. If she is not married, her mother shall take charge of her share. The other share shall be taken by the mother. When daughters are given in marriage, the mother shall apportion their share having due regard to their number. As regards the articles used by the father, Ns brothers s hall have them if his widow be married to any of them. In this case, the daughters shall have no right to the articles. But if the mother is married to a strange person other than her brother-in-law, the mother and the stepfather shall have no right to the articles. The daughters shall have them all.
72. After the death of the father, if the mother takes no husband, a son cannot claim a share in the property (amwe). He cannot have it even if he lays claim to it. If the mother marries again, the son shall have all his father's personal property. Landed property, elephants, horses and cattle, all goods and livestock, gold, silver and precious stones should be made into two equal portions, of which the son shall have one portion. If the son is a minor and is not separated from the mother, his shares must be kept in charge of the mother. If the son is not willing to live with his mother but prefers to live with his uncles, his guardian shall take charge of his property. When the son comes to maturity, or takes a wife so that he can take care of his own property, he shall have his property. The other portion goes to the mother. If there are several sons, the guardian shall divide the property equally among them. Why is this? Because their mother takes another husband who, although he may be a brother of her deceased husband, cannot have his personal property. The son shall have them all. Why is this? Because he is the father's own son.
73. If the mother dies and the father marries again and begets a son, the son by the former wife supports his father and his step-mother and lives with them, after which both his father and step-mother die, the property left by the deceased shall be equally divided between the son by the former wife and the son by the latter wife.
As the son by the latter wife is bound in duty to place the - "ghost post" of his father on his head and watch his corpse, he shall have the personal property of his father; or if the son by the former wife performs all these duties, he shall have his father's personal property of his mother. Why is this? Because the elder son has already made a partition with his father and obtained his share of the estate on the death of his mother.
Again, if the elder son is keeping a separate household for himself and the father and the step-mother are supported by ^^TO younger son, and at this time the parents die, the estate property must be divided into four shares, of which one-quarter shall be given to the eldest son and the three-quarters to the younger one. Why is this? Because the elder son has already made a partition with his father and obtained his share on the death of his mother and the younger son has had to bear the burden of supporting his mother.
74. The mother dies leaving sons and daughters; the eldest son also dies; the father marries his daughter-in-law and begets children, after which the father and his wife (his daughter-in-law) die. The law of partition between the children by the former wife and those by the latter is this: If after the death of the first wife and on the subsequent marriage with the daughter-in-law the children by the former wife received as their mother's share only half of the existing property, the (father's) separate marriage property (pay-in) shall be divided equally between the children of both wives. If on the subsequent marriage the children by the former wife obtained not only their mother's shares but their own ultimate shares of the estate but only what was their mother's share, the father's separate marriage property shall be divided equally between the children of both wives, and the joint property acquired during the second marriage shall be divided in four equal shares, of which one share shall be given to the children by the former wife and three shares to the children of the latter wife. If there be any debts, they shall be liquidated in similar proportions. Why is this? Because the sons by the second marriage are bound in duty to support their parents until their death.
75. If the mother dies and the father marries again, the law of proportion between the children by the former wife and the step-mother is this: If after the death of the father the step¬mother continues to remain within the Uyukon nat control of the father, the children of the deceased cannot lay claim to any share in the remaining estate. They shall support the stepmother and live with her as they would in the case of their own mother. On the death of the stepmother they shall inherit the whole of the estate. If on the death of the father there is no other relative of his whom his widow can marry, or if there being such relative a mother is not proposed and she cannot remain any longer within the nat control of the deceased husband, and must return to her parents and brothers, the children by the former wife shall have, under this circumstances, the fathers separate marriage property, and the widow shall have all the jointly acquired property during the time of her living with the deceased. If there are any debts they shall be liquidated in the same manner. Why is this? Because there is no son or daughter to succeed to the estate property; because both parties have got rid of their obligation. If after the death of the husband a proposal is made to the widow to marry a relative of the deceased and she does not consent but goes back to her parents and thereby infringes the national custom, she shall have no right to possession of her separate marriage property and the jointly acquired property during the time of her living with the deceased. The children by the former wife shall have them all. Why is this? Because she refused to marry the relative of her deceased husband although such a proposal was made to her.
76. If the father dies and the mother marries again and the children by the former marriage will not remain under the family nat control of their stepfather, they cannot have any property jointly acquired during the mother's subsequent marriage. The stepfather shall have it all. Why is this? Because they did not remain with their stepfather but live under the family nat control of their father and grandfather, to whose property they become entitled.
A) If the mother dies while her children by a former marriage are living under the family nat control of the step-father, and the children ask for a partition of the estate property while still living with their step-father, who has not taken another wife, no partition shall be effected. The stepfather shall have charge of the entire estate as they are in the same position as his own children. They shall also support their stepfather as they would their own father. On the death of the stepfather, the stepchildren shall have the whole estate. If after the death of the mother her children will not stay with the stepfather but desire a partition of the estate, the jointly acquired property shall be divided into four shares; one share shall be given to the children and three shares to the stepfather. Debts shall also be liquidated in similar proportions. Why is this? Because in the lifetime of the mother they were all living under the family nat control of the stepfather.
B) If during the lifetime of the mother her children are not living under the family nat control of their step-father they cannot have the property jointly acquired by their mother and the step-father, who consequently becomes their heir to the whole and must similarly liquidate all debts. Why is this? Because the children live separately and not under the family nat control of their stepfather. As regards the separate marriage property belonging to the mother, it shall be divided equally among the children and the step-father if they lived under his control before the death of their mother: even if they never lived under the family nat control of their step-father, the same division must be made. Why is this? Because the son is heir to his deceased mother's estate and the husband is heir to his deceased wife's estate.
C) If while the son of a former marriage is living under the family nat control of the step-father the wife dies and the step-father takes a new wife, the jointly acquired estate property must be divided between the step-father and step-son as in the case of an own father and son. It shall be divided into two shares and each shall have a share; the son shall also have all the separate marriage property belonging to his deceased mother. Why is this? Because the son lives with the stepfather although not an own son and because the stepfather takes a new wife.
77. If the father dies and the mother marries again and begets children, after which both of them die, the law of partition of the separate marriage property and the property jointly acquired is this. The mother's separate marriage property shall be divided into two shares, and one share shall be given to the children by the first husband and the other shares to the children by the second husband, or if the children by the former husband are living separately and the children by the latter husband support their parents in their old age, the mother's separate marriage property shall be divided into three shares, of which one share shall be given to the children by the former husband and two to those by the latter husband. Why is this? Because the latter had to support the parents in their old age.
A) The partition of the property jointly acquired after the mother's remarriage is this. If the children by the former husband are not living with their stepfather, they are not entitled to any share. The children by the second husband shall have all the property. If the children by the former husband are living with the stepfather, they are like his own children. They shall have one share and the children by the subsequent marriage two shares of the estate Why is this? Because, although they are the sons of the same father and mother, the youngest brothers are bound in duty to support the parents in their old age, and because the elder brothers have not left the family nat control of their step-father.
78. The law of partition of an estate between an adopted son placed within the family nat control and an own son and daughter is this. The estate shall be divided into a number of shares equal to the number of own and adopted children plus an extra reserved share. The shares shall be equally distributed among all the children, the reserved share being given to the youngest son. Why is this? Because, although he may be an adopted son, he has lived under the family nat control of his foster-parents as their own child and is therefore cut off from inheriting the property of his own parents. He becomes entitled only to his share in the estate of his foster-parents.
A) The reason why two shares are given to the youngest son is because he is bound in duty to support the parents in their old age and to perform the funeral rites after their death. The reason why the daughter is entitled to inherit a share in her parents' estate is because she has not taken a husband and is still living under the family nat control of the parents; or because, although she may have married, her husband has died or been divorced from her and she has therefore returned to her parents, if. whether married or not she does not live under the family nat control of the parents, she is not entitled to inheritance. Why is this? Because she has left the family nat control of her parents.
79. If the mother dies and the father marries again, the law of partition between the children of the former wife, the children of the latter wife (by a former marriage), and the children born of both husband and wife is this. If the children of the latter wife by a former marriage are not living with the stepfather, they are not entitled to shares of the property acquired during the subsequent marriage. Why is this? Because they were not living under the nat control of the step-father but continue to live under that of their own father.
A) The children by the former wife cannot depart from the family nat control of the father. They are living together with the children of the latter wife under the nat control of the father. The estate shall be divided into three parts and one-third shall be given to the children by the former wife and two-thirds to those of the latter wife. Why is this? Because the younger children have not left their mother and they have served their mother dutifully.
B) If the children of the latter wife by the former husband are living under the family nat control of the stepfather, the estate shall be divided into four shares. One share shall be given to the children of the former wife, one share to those of the latter wife by the former husband, and the remaining half to those born during the subsequent marriage. Why is this? Because the children of the former husband by living under the nat government of the stepfather have forfeited their claims to the property of there own father. They cannot however be cut off from succession to the separate marriage property of their mother, whether or not they live under the nat control of their stepfather. This property shall be divided into three shares; one share shall be given to the children by the former husband and two shares to those by the latter. Why is this? Because they are bound in duty to support the parents in their old age and to perform their funeral ceremonies on their death.
C) If the sons by a former husband are not living under the family nat control of the stepfather, they are not entitled to the separate marriage property brought by him. If however they are living as aforesaid, he separate marriage property of the stepfather shall be divided into six shares; three shares shall be given to the children by the subsequent marriage, two shares to the children by the former wife, and one to those by the former husband. Why is this? Because the children by the former wife received a half share of the estate when their father remarried. The children by the former wife by living under the nat control of their stepfather have forfeited their claims to the property of their own father and are therefore entitled only to the property of their stepfather. The reason why the children born during the subsequent marriage are entitled to receive three shares in their old age as also to perform their funeral ceremonies on their death.
80. If the eldest and middle sons die, leaving sons and daughters, after which the grandfather and grandmother also die, leaving an eldest son, middle son, and youngest son, the law of partition between their grandchildren and their children is this. The estate shall be divided into as many shares there sons by the grandparents, for whom also an extra share shall be reserved, after which one share shall be given to the children of each deceased son and one share to the sons. The youngest son (or his son) shall have the share reserved for grandparents. Although he may be a grandchild, his share must not be denied. He shall have his father's right. Why is this? Because in case the son had not died, this grandson would have been heir to a share in the estate.
81. If after the death of a son the daughter-in-law remains with his parents and does not take another husband, she is entitled to have what her deceased husband is entitled to. Why is this? Because she does not leave the family nat control of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Consequently she is not entitled to the property of her own parents; she can have only her husband's share in the estate of his parents. If she leaves her father-in-law and mother-in-law she has no right whatever to their estate, whether she may have children or not. Why is this? Because she departs from the family nat control of her husband and thereby commits a breach of the national custom.
82. If a son does not live under the family nat control of his own mother but lives under that of another, he shall forfeit his claim to his mother's property. Why is this? Because he is not faithful to the custom of his parents and does not serve them but follows his own pleasure.
A) The above rule applies also to a daughter under similar circumstances. On the marriage of a daughter if her parents have given a share of their property equal to the shares of the other children, she is entitled to no more inheritance if she continues to live under the family nat control of her husband. This rules applies only in the case of moveable property. But as regards landed property, such as lands, gardens, islands kaing cultivation, she still holds a right to a share. Let her have an equal share with the older sons. Why is this? Because the said property was not parcelled out during the lifetime of the parents. Even in case of moveable property, such as cows bullocks, horses, elephants, gold and silver, of they have also not been parcelled out it cannot be said to forfeit her claim to a share. She shall have a share, setting-off against it what was given to her as dowry.
83. If a son or a daughter departs from the family nat control of the parents and after entering the family nat control of others comes back afterwards, and re-enters this family nat control, and serves the parents like other sons and daughters, there is no special rule for this. The general law of inheritance is applicable to this case.
84. The separate marriage property belonging to a grandmother cannot be inherited by a step-grandfather if she has borne no children by him. Her own grandchildren shall have the whole of her property. As regards the property jointly acquired by both when living together, the grandmother's own grandchildren forfeit their claims to it if they do not remain under the family nat control of their step-grandfather. If, on the other hand, they should do so, they shall have one-fourth of it, and the step-grandfather shall have three-fourths. After the death of the grandmother, and before a partition of the property has been made, if the step-grand-father marries again, he cannot but give his step-grandchildren one-half of the jointly acquired estate so long as they remain under the control of his family nat, which places them in the status of own sons. He shall take one share and give one share to the step-grandchildren by his deceased wife. Why is this? Because these children remaining under the family nat control of their step-grandfather forfeit their claims to the property of their father.
85. If, on the death of a grandmother, the grandfather marries again, after which he also dies; the law of partition between the own grandchildren of the grandfather and the subsequent wife is this. Although she may be destitute of children, if she continues to remain under the family nat control of her deceased husband, she is entitled to one-third of the separate marriage property belonging to the deceased, the remaining two-thirds going to his own grandchildren. But if she departs from the said nat control before a partition has been made, she forfeits her claim to the above right. As regards the property jointly acquired by both after their marriage, the said grandchildren have no right to lay claim to it. They may come to the exclusive possession of the same only after the death of their step-grandmother. But if, notwithstanding that there is a brother of her late husband whom she is under obligation to marry, she leaves the said nat control and thereby breaks the tie of relationship, she is not entitled to any of the property although jointly acquired by herself and her deceased husband. Why is this? Because she breaks the national custom.
A) If on the death of a grandfather there is no one entitled to marry his widow, or if there being one no offer of marriage is made to her according to custom, it does not amount to an infringement of the customary rules in the event of the deceased's widow leaving his family. The jointly acquired property shall be divided into four shares and three-fourths given to the widow, the step-grandmother, and one-fourth to the deceased's own grandchildren. This partition is made because both parties obey their national law, and shares must be made in accordance therewith.
86. If the property given to a son at the time of his marriage be what was given to him as dower, his parents cannot claim it back from their daughter-in-law although their son may be dead. As it is property, which is given on the occasion of the daughter-in-law's marriage with the son and on the occasion of the latter being placed under her husband's family nat control, the daughter-in-law shall have it all. But if the gift of the property was only of a temporary nature and intended to afford them the means of living, it must be returned to the parents of the deceased by his widow, who shall not refuse its delivery; her deceased husband's parents shall have it back as it was only a temporary gift. And if the parents of the deceased say that such property cannot be taken back from the daughter-in-law on the ground of its having been given to her as dowry or her marriage to their son, or if they have no more sons to give in marriage with her, or if no other is made according to custom and in consequence she is not willing to live with her parents-in-law any longer and departs from the household, the property given her as dowry cannot be recovered by the parents on the ground of her having left them. They shall have no claims on such proper.
87. If on the occasion of the marriage of a son, property consisting of both goods and livestock is given to him as dower during the ceremony of the placing within the family nat control, and afterwards the son and his parents die and his surviving brothers claim possession of the said property from the deceased's widow, they cannot have it back as it was given as dower the deceased's widow shall have it all. But in the event of her refusing offer of marriage from any of the surviving brothers of her deceased husband, she shall not only forfeit her dowry but also any other property of which she is in possession and she must depart from their household.
88. If after marriage of a son, he and his parents die, the law of partition of their property between the deceased's widow and his surviving brothers is this. If, before the partition takes place, the deceased widow does not leave the family nat control of her parents-in-law, the property shall be divided equally between the deceased's widow and his surviving brothers in the same manner as if the former were still living. But if the widow leaves the household before this partition takes place, she shall forfeit her claim to a share in the property. Why is this? Because she has left their household and has therefore ceased to be one of its members.
89. If a daughter is given in marriage to a man and she follows her husband who dies subsequently, and she comes back to the family nat control of her parents, she is entitled to inherit her parent's estate. When she takes her share, what was given her as dower must be set off against it and the shares of her relatives must be added to proportionately.
90. The national law provides that a younger son shall, on the partition of an estate, receive equal to that of his elder brothers and sisters, and that in addition another share in the name of his parents shall be given him. But if, notwithstanding this right, he fails to support the parents in their old age and on their death he does not perform their funeral rites and omits to place their silver "ghost stake" on his head and if the elder brothers are all dutiful in these respects, the parents share shall not be given to the younger son. The elder brothers alone shall be entitled to receive it. Why is this? Because the younger son is not dutiful according to national law.
91. If the daughter on her marriage follows her husband and while she is living under the family nat control of her husband her parents die, their property shall be thus distributed. Suppose the parents die possessed of landed property and valuables in gold and silver. On their daughter's marriage if the dower given her did not comprise landed property so as to make her share in the estate equal to the respective shares given to the other daughters, her dowry having consisted of gold and silver alone, in that case she shall have a share of the landed property equal to the respective shares of each of the elder and younger brothers. If her parents died leaving much gold and silver, and if full share of these valuables had been given to all the daughters respectively on their marriage as dowry, she shall have a share of the surplus, if any, remaining after her parents' death, as well as of the remaining goods and livestock equal to the respective shares of each of the elder and younger brothers and sisters. Why is this? Because, although she has been given to a man for wife, she is still an heir to the estate of her parents, being one of their own daughters. But if what she had received as her dowry is comparatively large and the residue is comparatively small, or if the remaining property is just enough to be given to the other sons and daughters who have not yet received their dowries in as large a proportion as the other daughter, the latter shall forfeit all further claims to the residue.
92. If after the death of parents their own sons and daughters also die and their daughters-in-law and sons-in-law survive, if the daughters-in-law do not leave the family nat control of the parents of their deceased husbands, and the sons-in-law have no children, the latter are not entitled to shares in the property of the deceased parents-in-law. The daughters-in-law who have not left the family nat control of the parents-in-law shall have all the property. If the parents-in-law have left debts behind
them, the daughters-in-law shall pay them. If both the daughters-in-law and the sons-in-law have offspring and are thus on equal standing, the children of the former shall have two-thirds and those of the latter one-third of the estate of the deceased parents-in-law, setting off against these shares what was given to them as dowry on their marriage. If the daughters-in-law have no issue but the sons-in-law have, the estate must be equally divided amongst them after deducting the dowries given them on their marriage. Why is this? Because fine daughters-in-law have sons and daughters the latter are bound to support their grandparents in place of their fathers, and therefore such daughters-in-law should have two-thirds of the estate. But if they are destitute of children, and if the sons-in-law only have issues, the estate must be equally divided among them.
93. If both the parents and their sons and daughters die, the grandchildren alone being left, and the estate of the grandparents is left undivided, the law respecting division between elder and younger sons and daughters shall be applicable for the partition of the estate between the grandchildren. The grandchildren shall have the share to which their parents are respectively entitled. Why is this? Because sons and daughters surviving their parents are entitled the property left by them.
94. The law of partition between grandchildren is also applicable to their descendants.
95. If sons, grandsons, and great grandsons get married, live separately, and afterwards die leaving no issues, their parents surviving them, these survivors shall have the estate respectively left by the deceased. If there are no parents living, but the grandparents are still alive, the grandparents shall inherit the estates. Why is this? Because the waters of five great rivers and the 500 smaller ones all flow into the great ocean, and when the ocean is full there is no more space left, they are driven back by the great whirlpool to their sources. Similarly therefore is the law of partition of estates when there are no descendants left.
96. If, during the lifetime of parents, the elder sons and daughters are given in marriage, and dowries are given on the occasion of their being placed under a family nat control, after the death of parents, the remaining sons and daughters shall have no claim to what has already been given on the occasion of the ceremony of marriage and placing within the family nat control. Were the gifts so made given only for temporary use as a means of living upon, the length of the time of possession of the same by the elder brothers and sisters shall not be a bar to the younger brothers and sisters making their claims to shares in the same.
97. The provisions of the preceding section apply to the law of partition between brothers and sisters on the deaths of their parents.
98. If people who have sons and daughters of their own obtain the children of other families for adoption, or rear up waif boys and girls, or rear up stray boys and girls who come to them of their own accord and are pleased to live under the same family nat control as their own sons and daughters, these adopted children, if they do not withdraw themselves from the nat control of their foster or adopted parents, forfeit their claims to succession to a share in the estate of their own parents, and are therefore entitled to shares equal to those of own children in the estate of their adopted parents. Why is this? Because they do not leave their adopted parents, but serve them as their own children.
99. If while married sons and daughters are living with their parents in the same house they die, the law for the partition of their property is this. If the property belongs to the son-in-law separately from his parents-in-law, the latter have no claim on it, nor is the in-law entitled to a share in the property of his wife's parents. He shall take his own property as it is* and the parents shall claim no share in it. Why is this? Because, although the son-in-law is living with his wife's parents, he is under a different nat control. A daughter-in-law leaving the nat government of her husband's parents is not entitled to a share in their property; and even if she continues to live with them she cannot have a share during the lifetime of her husband's parents. If she does not leave their family nat control even after their death, and if there remain no other sons and daughters, the daughter-in-law shall have all the property of her husband's parents when they die. Why is this? Because she does not leave the family nat control of her husband's parents but has borne the burden of supporting them as would an own daughter.
100. On the death of an only son who has been married and who has lived together with his parents, if there is no issue left by the deceased, his widow cannot claim a partition of the estate of the parents of the deceased while they are still living. If she does not leave them after the death of her husband, she must support the parents of the deceased as she was wont to do while he was living. When the parents die, she shall have all their property. If on the death other husband, and before the death of his parents, the daughter-in-law leaves their family nat control, she shall forfeit all her claims to their property except what had been given to her as dowry. If she has no issue by the deceased, her claim to inherit the property of deceased ceases.
101. A son marries and lives separately from his parents; he afterwards goes back to the house of his parents, taking with him all his property, and dies there. The father shall not have the deceased's property on the plea that the deceased afterwards came and lived in his house; let his widow have all
such property. If the deceased's parents have more sons available for marriage with the widow of the deceased, and proposals according to national custom are made to her but she declines and departs from the household nat control of the parents of her deceased husband, in such case she shall
forfeit all her separate properly, and her late husband's parents shall have it all. If she merely declines to accept the proposals of marriage made to her by the surviving brother but she still continues to live under the household nat control, the parents shall have no claim to such property on the ground of her refusal to many their surviving son. The widow of the deceased shall have it all.
102. If a daughter is given in marriage, and her parents allow her according to custom to follow her husband to his parents' house, and both of them die leaving an estate, although the parents of the deceased woman make claim to a share in the said property they cannot have it, because they deceased to have any right to inherit her property from the day of her marriage and removal to the house of her husband's parents under whose family nat control she became subject. The parents of the deceased son shall have all the property. If the son dies first and his widow is recalled by her parents, and she leaves the nat control of her parents-in-law taking with her all her property, and afterwards dies in her parents' house, the parents of her deceased husband shall have no claim to
the property as it is property which had been taken away when the deceased daughter-in-law left the control of their household nat, her parents shall have it all. If the daughter dies and her husband survives, and afterwards he also dies leaving an estate, the parents of the daughter have no claim to it. The parents of the son shall have it all. Why is this? Because the family nat control of each party is different
103. Of several sons and daughters in a family, if any of them be cripple, deaf, dumb, or otherwise incapitated, he or she shall be entitled to a share in the property of the deceased parents in the same proportion as the other sound brothers and sisters are entitled. The fact of his or her unsoundness shall not preclude him or her from inheriting. But such unsound children shall have no right to the share reserved for the dead parents; only such of the children who support the parents in their old age and who performed their funeral rites shall be entitled to their parents' shares. Why is this? Because as the unsound children are incapacitated from ministering to their parents, the right to the shares of the latter falls upon the sound children who perform this duty.
104. ff after the death of a husband, and before partition of his property takes place, any of his widows, whether the chief, the junior, or the youngest, leaves the nat control of the deceased. She who continues to remain under it shall be reckoned the chief wife irrespective of her original position in point of precedence. If all of them leave, or if all of them continue to live under the nat control of the deceased, they shall preserve their original positions in marriage, and the property shall be divided into five shares, two being given to the chief wife and the remainder shall be equally divided amongst the other wives. If the chief wife leaves the nat control of her deceased husband before the junior ones do so, the junior wife who continue to live under it and who is the next In seniority shall be reckoned the chief and shall have two shares, the rest being equally divided among the other junior wives including the (originally) chief wife. If a junior wife leaves the nat control of the deceased husband, before the chief wife does so, she forfeits all claims to his property. Why is this? Because she paid no regard to her husband's line of the family and left his nat control earlier than his other wives.
105. A husband dies leaving a chief wife, a concubine (apyaung), and a slave-wife (kyunmaya). If the slave-wife has no children, she shall forfeit her claim to share in the estate of the deceased, and the first wife and the concubine shall have no claim to recover from the slave-wife the price at which she was bought. The apyaung shall have one-fourth and the first wife three-fourths of the deceased's property. A concubine ("apyaung wife") is one with whom a man does not sleep together in a common bed. He merely keeps her in the house of his chief wife and visits her at times.
106. A man takes a chief wife, a concubine, and a slave-wife, and has children by all of them. All the parents then die. The property of the deceased has to be divided among the children. It shall be made into three-and-a-half shares and two shares shall be given to the children by the first wife, Why is this? Because, although the younger children are bound in duty to support their old parents and bury them after death, only the younger children by one wife are bound to do this duty. The children of the concubine and of the slave wife are barred from doing this duty although they may be the eldest sons. Only the son of the first wife is liable to do this obligation, and therefore he is entitled to two shares. The reason why the son of a concubine should get a share, although his mother is only a kept one, is because he lives under the family nat control of his father. As regards the son of the slave-wife, since his mother was bound to pay the price at which she was bought and she is freed from this bondage, a half share is suitable for him.
107. On the death of a chief wife, a man takes a slave woman to wife and then both of them die. His property remains to be divided among the children by the chief wife and those by the slave. The property shall be divided into four shares and three shares shall be given to the children by the former and one share to those by the latter. Why is this? Because although the son of the slave-wife is the younger son, he is not entitled to the performance of the funeral ceremonies of his father, as this duty falls only upon the son of the chief wife; the latter is therefore entitled to three shares in the said property. Although the son by the slave is said to be a slave's son, yet his mother was taken to wife after the death of the chief wife, he ought to get one whole share.
108. If a man dies and his widow marries a slave in her house and then dies, the property of the deceased must be divided among the children of the former husband and those borne by the slave. If the mother and the children of the deceased husband had already taken their respective shares when she marries her slave, the mother's separate marriage property shall be divided into three shares and two-thirds shall be given to the son of the former husband and one-thirds shall be given to the son of the former husband and one-third to that borne by the slave. If the estate has not been divided between the mother and her children by the slave, the property of the deceased husband shall be divided into five shares and four shares shall be given to the son of the former husband and one share to the slave's son. Why is this? Because the slave-husband is indebted to his wife for the price of his body, if the children of the deceased husband do not live under the nat control of the slave step-father, the property jointly acquired with him shall be divided into four shares and three shares shall be given to the children begotten by him and one share to those of the former husband. If the son of the deceased husband lives under the nat control of his slave step-father, the tatter's property must be equally divided between the children by both fathers. Why is this? Because although the second husband is a slave of his deceased father the latter's son lives under the nat control of his slave step-father, thereby subjecting himself to a loss of honour.
109. If on the death of chief wife the husband takes a second wife and then dies, if a partition of the deceased's property has already taken place between the father and foe children born of the deceased wife, the separate marriage property belonging to the father must be divided into two parts and one part given to the son of the former wife and the other part divided between the second wife and her children by a former marriage. If on the death of the (second) chief wife the man has married her daughter by a former husband, the partition shall be made in this way. The property acquired by the man during his marriage with the daughter of his deceased wife by a former husband should be divided into six shares; one share of it shall be given to the first wife's son, one share to the middle wife's son, and the four shares to the step-daughter, wife, and children begotten of her by him. Why is this? Because he has taken the mother to wife and next her daughter to wife, and has had children by both, who attend on him and ought therefore to get four shares in the estate.
110. A widower with sons and a widow with daughters marry and beget children. The husband dies and the widow marries her deceased husband's son by a former marriage. The law of partition is as follows. The separate marriage property belonging to the deceased father shall be divided into two parts; his sons by the former wife shall have one part and the other part shall be given to the sons by the second wife. The daughters of the latter by a former husband shall not be entitled to share in the said property. No partition of the step-mother's separate marriage property shall take place during her lifetime. After her death, and if partition of the shares in the estate between the daughters and parents had already been made on her taking a second husband, the said property shall be divided equally between the step-mother's daughters by the former marriage and the sons by the subsequent marriage. If no such partition had been made on her re-marriage, the property shall be divided into four shares, three shares being given to the step-mother's daughters by the former husband and one share to the sons by the latter. The step-father shall not claim a share in this partition. As regards the previous jointly acquired property since the step-son married his step¬mother, a moiety of it shall be given to the children born in the former marriage. The daughters by the former marriage are not entitled to a partition during the lifetime of the mother. After her death one share shall be given to the daughters by the former marriage and another share to the sons by the subsequent marriage. If no partition has been made between the stepfather and the sons by the first wife, the separate marriage property of the first wife shall be divided into four parts and three parts shall be given to the first wife's sons and one part to the stepmother and her children. As regards the property jointly acquired by the first wife and her husband, it shall be divided into four parts and one part shall be given to the first wife's son and three parts to the step-mother and her children; the property of the step-mother also shall be divided in the same manner, in the separate marriage property of the step-mother the first wife's son shall have no share as his father has been twice married. The step-mother and her children shall have all the said property.
111. If a first wife dies leaving sons, and the widower takes a second wife who already has a daughter, and after bearing children the second wife dies and the widower takes a third wife, the daughter by a former marriage of his deceased second wife, and after begetting children by her the husband dies, the law as to partition between the sons by the first wife, the sons and the step-daughter by the second wife, and the sons by the step-daughter wife is as follows. When the first wife dies leaving sons and the father takes the second wife, if the father's property has not already been divided between the first wife's sons and the younger wife's children, the separate marriage property belonging to the first wife shall be divided into two snares and one given to the first wife's sons as their mother's share. The other half, the father's share, shall be divided into three parts and one part shall be given to the first wife's sons, one part to the second wife's sons, and the remaining part to the third wife's sons. The first wife's son shall not be entitled to the separate marriage property belonging to the second wife. It shall be divided into three parts and two parts shall be given to the step-daughter wife and to her children and the remainder to the sons born of the step-daughter wife's mother. The property jointly acquired by the man with the middle wife shall be divided into five shares and one share given to the first wife's son, two shares to the middle wife's son, and the remainder to the step-daughter wife and the children born of her.
112. A woman elopes with a man and bears children, after which she comes back to her parents and with their consent is married to the man, and marriage property is given to her on the occasion and on the occasion of her being placed under the family nat control. The children born during the elopement
are not entitled to the property given to their mother at the time of her marriage and of her admission within the family nat control. As regards property jointly acquired by their parents while living together, it shall be divided among the children according to the law of partition applicable to the
case. Why is this? Because their mother was disobedient to her parents and, in violation of the race custom, eloped with a man without their consent.
113. A son begotten through the wanton pleasure of the parents is a son without a father and shall not be entitled to a share of inheritance in the father's estate equal to that of a son born in wedlock. The estate shall be divided into four parts and three parts given to the legitimate and one part to the illegitimate son. Why is this? Because such son was born through the wanton pleasure of the mother and the father was not apparent.
114. A woman bears a son out of wedlock for which her grandparents have accepted a fine. The son thus born lives under the family nat control of the grandfather and the grandmother. He is entitled to a share of inheritance in his mother's estate like the other children. If he leaves the grandparents and lives elsewhere, he forfeits his claim to share in their property, but he is entitled to recover the fine which was accepted by them on account of his mother's unchastity.
115. A woman cohabited with a man want only and becomes pregnant, for which she accepts a fine; afterwards a son is born. When this son claims succession to the estate of his father, he shall inherit his father's property if there are no other legitimate children. If there is a son by lawful marriage with another woman, the illegitimate son shall inherit nothing but the fine accepted by his mother. But if he lives under the nat control of his father and supports, he shall not forfeit his claims. The fine which was accepted by his mother shall be included in the estate, and he shall have a share of the estate like the legitimate sons.
116. If a woman who is pregnant is married to a man by her parents and a son is afterwards born; and while they are living together, another son is subsequently born, after which both parents die leaving an estate, it shall be divided into four parts, and three parts shall be given to the son born of the marriage, and one part to the son who was conceived before the marriage. Why is this? Because the son thus born is not entitled to the father's share but only to the mother's share.
117. A woman through her chastity and association with a man becomes pregnant and bears a son after having been given in marriage to another man. The son's real father has no other children and has only elder and younger brothers. The child subsequently returns to his own father, lives under his family nat control, supports him, and performs all the duties obligatory on sons. His uncles have no claim to his father's property. He shall have it ail. But if such son fails to perform all the said duties and lives under the family nat of another man, he shall forfeit all claims to his own father's property, the right of succession to which then devolves upon the uncles who live with his father and perform the said duties.
118. When a husband and wife die childless and have parents or grandparents, or brothers or sisters, or relatives either on the paternal or maternal side to succeed to the property of the deceased, and there are relatives on the wife's or husband’s side, the property must be divided equally among them. If there are no relatives, the property escheats to the Government.
119. On the death of a husband his widow lives with the parents of the deceased, and their family nat control, till their death. Their property shall be divided between her and surviving brothers as between elder and younger brothers and as if the elder brother (her husband) were still alive. But if she leaves the family nat control and she has no issue, she forfeits her all her claims to a share in the estate of her parents-in-law.
120. Married brothers, both elder and younger, all live together having a common interest in the property, gained by all, after which a younger brother dies. An elder brother of the deceased being entitled to marry his sister-in-law, the deceased's wife, offers her his proposals according to their custom, but she refuses to accept the proposals and departs from the nat control of the family of her deceased husband. She forfeits her claim to any property said to be the fruit of the labour of her deceased husband. The elder brother shall have it all. If no such offer is made, or if made is refused by the sister-in-law, who however does not leave the nat control but lives under it, she shall have half of the property as being the fruit of the common labour of the deceased and his elder brother; the other half shall be given to the elder brother. Although she may leave their family nat control, if among the family of the brothers-in-law there is no one entitled to marry her; or if though there is one no proposal of marriage is made, the elder brother shall have no claim to appropriate the whole of the property. As the widow left their household in a manner consistent with law, she shall have half of the said property.
121. If a brother and a sister live together and have the same interest in their common property, the partition of such property between them must be made on the principle that the brother is of the stronger sex and acquires more of it than his sister; two-thirds therefore shall be given to the brother and one-third to the sister.
122. If one of several brothers dies leaving no parents or children to succeed him and he is attended on his sick bed and his funeral ceremonies are performed by one of the brothers only the other brothers having neglected to do all these duties, the partition of the property of the deceased is thus made. The brothers who neglected to attend on him while sick and to bury him when dead forfeit all their claims to share in it. He who attended to all the said duties shall have it all. But when funeral ceremonies are being performed if the other brothers come and share the expenses of the burial of the dead, the brother who undertakes the burial shall not take the whole of the said property. He shall have one special share for taking on himself of the duty of burying the deceased, and the rest shall be equally divided among all the brothers present.
123. A person having brothers and relatives of his own dies in a stranger's house having been attended during his illness by that stranger who after his guest's death performs the funeral rites and buries him at his own expense. If information of his sickness or death could not be given to his relatives owing to the distance of their residence, or if even though information had been given they could not have come in time to attend on or to bury him, it cannot be held that such relatives shall lose their claim to the deceased's property. They shall have their shares and pay the costs of the funeral incurred by the stranger; but if the relatives of the deceased do not come to attend on or to bury him although they were sent for and had sufficient time to do so, they shall forfeit their claims to the deceased's property and the stranger shall have it all.
124. A man takes a wife and has children by her. The wife dies, the widower takes another wife and has children by her. The second wife dies. The widower takes a third wife and has children by her. The man and wife die lastly. The law as to partition between the sons by the three wives is as follows. If
when after the death of a wife the man takes another and the son by the elder deceased wife has not got his mother's share, the property jointly acquired with her must be divided into two parts of which one shall be given to the son by the elder wife as his mother's share, the remaining half shall be subdivided into three shares and one shall be given to the son by the elder wife and one to the son by the middle wife, and the other to the son by the youngest wife. The property jointly acquired with the second wife should also be divided into the same manner, a share being reserved for the son by the middle wife as his mother's right, and the remaining three shares shall be divided equally among the sons by the elder, middle, and youngest wives. The property acquired with the youngest wife should also be similarly divided into two shares, one share being given to the son by the youngest wife and the remainder divided into three parts of which let each of the sons take an equal share. Why is this? Because the law provides that the mother's share shall be taken entirely by a son and the father's share shall be divided among all the sons equally.
125. The law of partition between sons by three successive husbands is according to the provisions of the preceding section. Why is this? Because a son has the right to inherit the property of his father.
126. During the lifetime of a mother a daughter is given in marriage and property is given to her by way of dowry. The remaining property by comparison with that given as dowry consists of just enough to be given as dowries to the other daughters when they should get married. On the death of the parents there shall be no partition of the remaining estate among the unmarried daughters. The relatives, on the occasion of the marriage of each, shall give her property equal to what the eldest daughter had received on her marriage. Meanwhile the elder sister and her husband, or the uncles, shall take charge of the property remaining undivided with the consent of the unmarried sisters. If all but one are married and have received their respective dowries, the unmarried one shall have the same share as was given to the married sisters. Should there be any surplus of the said estate, it shall be divided equally among all the sisters. The youngest daughter who remains unmarried shall have her mother's necklaces, earrings, and clothing, otherwise let the elder daughter have them. Why is this? Because after the death of the mother the uncle becomes her representative, and if in such capacity he asks either his elder or younger niece to give him a cow valued Rs. 30 the nieces are bound to obey him in room of their deceased mother, and they are therefore entitled to the personal property of the deceased.

127. If after the divorce of the parents from one another their sons and daughters do not live with them but live separately on the death of these sons and daughters the mother cannot inherit their property. The father shall have it all. Why is this? Because, although the sons and daughters live separately, they are not free from the subjection to the nat control of their father, which is different from that of their mother. This being so, on the death of the sons and daughters the mother cannot bury them, this duty devolving entirely on the father, who is therefore entitled to all the property left by the deceased children.

III
NOTES
GENERAL REMARKS BY
DR. E. FORCHAMMER, PROFESSOR OF PALI AND
GOVERNMENT ARCHEOLOGIST, BRITISH BURMA

1. The literature of Indian nations generally show defects in the methods of critical inquiry, in the judicial exposition of collected material, and in the chronological records of events, which recommend them but little to the esteem of the more accurate and exacting students from the West. But since Colebrooke, Wilson, Muir, Monier Williams, Dr. Burnell, Haug, and many other students of Aryan and Dravidian languages and literatures have, in consultation with intelligent and learned pandits, studied the political, social, and religious institutions of India, and exemplified in these researches the superior acumen of minds trained for these purposes in the West, the natives have not been slow in following the tract pointed out. Rajendralala Mitra, Mandlik, Bhandarkar Nyayalankara, Bhau Daji, and others enjoy, as Oriental scholars, well-deserved esteem both in India and Europe.
2. In Burma, one of the latest acquisitions of the British Crown, we are but arrived at the threshold of studies in the literature and languages of the native races. And yet already eleven years ago a book was issued from a native press written in Burmese and compiled by Maung Kyaw Dun, then Extra Assistant Commissioner of Danubyu, which contains a summary of Burmese and Talaing political and religious history, of astronomy, and also a resume of the British administration in Burma. The work, entitled Pakinnakadipanikyam, recommends itself for the fair judgment which the author displays in the selection and arrangement of the material, and in the omission of all, or nearly all, that a European critic would condemn as emanating from national idiosyncrasies or native incapacity to distinguish between what is real and essential, fictitious and trivial, in the exposition of the native history; yet the book is little more than a judicious selection from existing sources. The Burmans possess an almost Hellenic version towards taking any cognisance of idioms, laws and usages of Lu Yain, or "wild" tribes. In the whole body of the Burmese literature there is not a work which would acquaint us with more than the bare names of many tribes which inhabit or border on the Burmese dominions. The Chin Dhammathat, compiled by Maung Tet Pyo, Assistant Commissioner of Myede, is quite a departure from the usual routine followed by Burmese authors. As a work setting forth the laws and usages of "Pabbatamanussas," or mountain tribes, it is unique in native literature. And though the compilation is not the result of an independent study of Chin law and customs, but the outcome of a series of questions addressed to Chin lugyis and pazans, who had lived long amongst Burmans and adopted a good number of the judicial, religious, and social notions of the latter, yet the author has well succeeded in bringing into prominence the chief distinguishing feature of Chin laws and customs.
3. The Chins found in British Burma to the number of 55,000 have at different times emigrated from the north of Upper Burma, chiefly from the headwaters of the Chindwin river. According to the provincial census taken in 1881, there are in the Thayetmyo district 16,416 Chins, in Kyaupyu 11,617, in Prome 10,000, in Henzada, there are 3,652, of this curious race. They are nearly all cultivators of the soil.
4. In order to better understand the peculiar Chin laws and usages, which have become considerably modified and altered through the influence of Burmese law and custom upon the Chins living amongst the Burmans, it is necessary to revert to the social and religious conditions prevalent among the original stock from which they separated. The main body of the Chins inhabits the mountain tracts, which lie east of Assam to Yunnan. They are there subdivided into thirty-six clans (or zo) which bear the following names:
(1) Zapot zo (19) Zaungdshi zo
(2) Muzon zo (20) Tan zo
(3) Panzi zo (21) Pwoi tshi zo
(4) Lei pin zo (22) Men dhet zo
(5) Zingye zo (23) Yein hon zo
(6) Talaun zo (24) Hmo zo zo
(7) Hlat htaung zo (25) Hmau zo zo
(8) Lei phyu zo (26) Khadhu zo
(9) Ka zek zo (27) Taun dshyop zo
(10) Zing hei zo (28) Ma Ai zo
(11) Alei zo (29) Mon dhu zo
(12) Gotzu zo (30) Kha zak zo
(13) Khalei zo (31) Htein zo zo
(14) Mang ong zo (32) Hie hlan zo
(15) Un zon zo (33) Plangzo
(16) Khye zo zo (34) Htun pauk zo
(17) Ka zein zo (35) Zein lein zo
(18) Klan zun zo (36) Pazan zo

5. Each clan occupying a mountain tract separated from the neighbouring clan land by an intervening valley or river; the clans live in perpetual quarrels and warfare with each other; the bottom of the valley being considerable debatable ground the utilization of the river or stream, upon which the lands of several clans may border, being claimed by one to the exclusion or detriment of the other, there are constant occasions for armed clan interference. Whatever the result of the contest may be, the worsted party retires to its mountain fastness, the possession of which is never coveted or disputed by the other clans. The houses occupied by the several clans are considered by intertribal law to be a sacred and inalienable possession. The zos have temporary leaders in their mutual feuds or against a common enemy; but they appear not to be subjected to the authority of a Chief, either separately or collectively, who claims pre-eminence by virtue of either greater wealth or superior birth. Each zo is subdivided into families; but whether they hold and cultivate the land in common, or whether it is parcelled out amongst them I have not been able to ascertain; but the latter seems to be the case, for in old Chin erotic songs frequent allusions are made as to how the secret wooer, avoiding the gateway, clears the fence which surrounded the field and house of the family of which the object of his visit formed a part. In an account of the creation of the world and of the settling down of the Chins upon this earth Hui Dun, one of the sixty sons of their chief nat, Hli, who descended from his father's abode to instruct the Chins, advised them to build the sides of their houses with yohna, a species of bamboo (, of the Burmans); to use the yo zing, also a bamboo (the) for the construction offences around their fields, to prevent elephants and other animals who destroyed the crops of the Chins from entering them; and also to erect sties for pigs in each enclosed field.
The text runs thus:
Yo ying pui won xou wei bhoi,
Yo hna paun khlaung han yei bhoi
Shian wai laiya, won kloo,
Yo zing pui won a zou a.
Yo hna poun khlaung go.
Zang kyei zohon khaun wa am zun htai.
Thuidun han yiei bhoi o.
Hui Dun said: "With yoging build a hedge; with yo hna cover the sides of the house, and set up a sty for the hogs: let these things be done so that elephants, tigers', and bears may not enter the field (khaun) thus fenced in".
The origin of ail evil in this world is ascribed to Zin Htai, an ill-conditioned, wicked fellow who, after measures had been taken against the field being damaged by animals, climbed over the fence and killed a hog of his father-in-law with a spear.
Zin Htai zo zoun no.
Shian wai lai ya nan pyan yo no.
Hui Dun pu won zim ni zit ko.
"Zin Htai, on account of being a bad man, returned, and hiding himself near the fenced-in field of Hui Dun, speared one of the tatter's hogs." This act constitutes the original sin with the Chins: a quarrel ensued, which led to violent deeds and wars amongst them. Compare with this account the origin of evil as given in Burmese law books and in the Buddhist canon.
6. It is hazardous to draw from such premises inferences to be applied in favour either of land being held in common by the clan or parcelled out and possessed by families. The Chins of this province having, two or more generations ago, separated from their respective tribes, are unable to give decisive information on this point. The names of the 36 clans imply professions, which are hereditary in each of them. The Pazan zo furnishes their priests, whose sole occupation is to preside over the ceremonies performed at marriages and funerals. None but they know the formulas pronounced at such occasions, the old sacred songs, embodying the mythological notions of the Chins. Other zos have their name from being by occupation goldsmiths, manufacturers of swords, of knives and spears, boatmen, &c. But most of the names refer to the nature of military services, which they render to the King of Burma and formerly to the Chinese. The clan appellations imply "guardians of the palace," "sword-bearers," "spear-bearers," "lancers," "bowmen," "elephant-keepers," &c. A Chin family consists of four parts,—the parents, the elder sons, the youngest son, and the daughters. The parents look after the fields, .the father after the clan interests at home, in conjunction with the youngest son, who, for the assistance he gives to the parents, is the chief heir of the parents' property. The elder sons are partakers of the clan-privileges or clan-distinctions, which have been bestowed upon the clan collectively by the Sovereign for services in war. Each clan gives, in time of war, a contribution of men to the King; this contribution consists of the elder sons of each family; they collect in separate bodies, each clan for himself and distinguishable by the peculiar weapons they wear or the privileges they enjoy, or the position they occupy in the army of the Sovereign. The latter generally places them under the leadership of a Burmese headman, who performs, while they are in camp, the functions of a chieftain, which however ceases with their return to their mountain homes. The privileges and marks of favour, bestowed by the King upon the several clans for war services rendered, and which descend hereditarily in each clan, not from father to son but from elder brothers to elder brothers, form the sole basis of precedence or superiority of one clan over the other. A member of another clan may, by abjuring his immediate kinsmen, and by paying a heavy compensation, become a member of another clan, more distinguished than his own. The youngest son takes, with regard to inheritance, the position of the oratha (aurasa) of the Burmese (Hindu) law books, although the latter acknowledge in several places preferential rights to the son who stays with his parents and assists them. Among the warlike Chins the birthright of the eldest son is not the privilege of a tame cultivator or cattle-raiser at home, but to become birtright the common clan rights acquired in war and to maintain them in the same manner as they have been won. The spoil acquired by each individual in a campaign belongs to him individually; hence the comparatively small share, which the elder sons are entitled to receive from the family property.
7. But the Chins are also cultivators of the soil: this function is exercised by the parents, the daughters, and the youngest son. The occupation of the elder sons is precarious; they often return no more. I will here add what appear to me the reasons why the youngest son is kept at home and receives the principal share of the parental inheritance. All the members of a family stand under the protection of, and in communication with, the manes of that departed male individual who stood in closest relationship with the oldest surviving male member of the family. A female when marrying must abjure the manes of her family: as soon as the Uyukkan ceremony is performed she comes under the jurisdiction of her husband's nat, who is the nat of the whole family. On all ceremonies and festivals offerings are made to this family ghost. "Offerings" or "sacrifices," however, are in this case a misnomer. The Chin provides for his comforts in the next world by transferring as much of his present property through the agency of his manes to the next world: he will there drink as many pots of khaung, and eat just so much of hog-flesh and buffalo-joints as he made over to his nat in this existence for safe-keeping in the next, in addition to what after his death his male representatives will vote to his memory. The Chin makes propitiatory offerings to other nats of evil propensities, such as the Tunkhono, Wonkhom, Thai thu kongwa, and Luzun khongwa Nats, with a view to avert their evil influence productive of disease, loss of cattle, or bad harvests. But the stable sources from which he can draw are not furnished from precarious occupation of the military members of the family but from what constitutes the family property. The youngest son being born last will probably die last, especially as he is not exposed to the dangers of war; and it must be a son who pays the tribute to the manes of the departed whether they be those of the father or of the brother who dies before him. The female members have no rights in the merits accruing from offerings to the ghost of the departed unless they be made through a male of the family. Daughters and wives have the protection and goodwill of the family manes only through their husbands and fathers; the property of the family belongs only to the male members of the house; she may enjoy it with the lather or husband, but if her husband dies, the property (excepting her dowry from her own parents) remains in the family into which she has married. If she were to leave that family with a portion of her husband's property, the property would benefit the manes of her parents, or of her second husband; or, if she remains single and does not live with her parents, of the Uieya, or dog nat, the common nat of the genus woman. (According to Chin mythology Hli, the highest deity, created first a male and female Chin, who stood in the relation of brother and sister to each other. Hli placed them on earth. While wandering about the brother got separated from his sister and was lost; he is said to have then taken a bitch for his wife. The sister finally found his brother thus affianced; she complained to HH about it, and asked for the favour of becoming the wife of her brother instead of the dog. HI ordered her to make rich offerings to the canine consort of her brother, so that the bitch might give up conjugal rights in her favour this was effected, and the brother and sister married. I give the story for what it is worth; but the fact is that the Chin women to this day make propitiatory offerings to the nat of the dogs to prevent his interfering with their marrying men of their own clan and nearest kinsmen.)
8. A widow may remain in the family of her husband, but then she is a mere cypher, a hanger-on, without enjoying any rights belonging to the family; or she may go with one suit of clothes where she likes. Her connection with her husband's family then ceases entirely. The children born to her by the deceased husband remain with his family. The other alternative is to marry a brother of her former husband or his nearest male relation standing under the government of the same nat as her first husband and the eldest male member of the family.
9. The principle which here operates to prevent the parceling out of the family property to any but the male members of the same household and household nat is that property is only acquired and held in this world to secure as much as possible of the enjoyment in a future existence; such property is
transmitted to manes of the departed male member by the oldest surviving male individual; in fact the keeping and disposal of the property remains in the male line and descends from the oldest to the youngest, as the latter will probably outlive the others and, not being exposed to the perils of wars, can attend to the home interests of all members of the family, and is most likely to provide for male descendents to the inheritance.
10. The hardworking Chin women do most to increase the amount of family property: so far they are considered a useful acquisition; but they have no account with the manes; no transfer property to the latter can be made through women. A suitor must give presents to the brother-protector of the girl: these presents cannot be considered as a "bride"; they are only a compensation for the loss of a hand in the household, which helped to increase the family property. At the giving of a girl in marriage (which is done by the brothers and not by the parents), the compensation paid for the girl is proportionate to what her family will Jose in the future acquisition of property through her departure and what the family of her husband will gain through her labour. The suitor must make over so much of his property to the brother as will, in the estimation of the latter, compensate the loss to his family and be equal to the gain which accrues to the suitors' family through the acquisition of an additional hand.

Source: Bodleian Library, Oxford, and U.K.

1 comment:

Simon Baddeley said...

A copy of this work was in the private library of Sir Henry Sumner Maine. I am his great great grandson and I hold that copy and was delighted to find the text digitised on this website. I've mentioned this on my blog at:
http://democracystreet.blogspot.com/2011/05/learning-about-sir-henry.html