Marathi - Latche marathi Aetihasik Lekh Part 02

Author(s): Vidyanand Swami Srivastava
Publisher: Aietihasik Gaurava Granthmala

Page 29

No6. 4,2 Tallies with Nos. 4,1 with one or two axceptiona. Ecop.
tiou one is in connectiou with the aliases of Mansngl. Mansingh' alias i 4.1 is "Yognu Bab1" and in chis it is "Yogji Baba." While in No. tliere is no alisses at all. Exception Noe. 2. is in connection withi the adoption of Gemalsingb. At one place it says that Genialsingh became "Waris' of Nathubaba, and at second place it says that the widow of Nathubala adopted Gemalsingh, wbile No. 4 i at both the places makes Gemalsingh the "Waris" of Mathubaba but on the other hand No. 4 asserts in precise tone that Genialeingh was "Dattak" in the family of Nathubaba.
Nog 4/3. This table is a repetition of No 2 and 3 and therefore
deserved no further comments at our hands.
Nog 4/8. This table is the Geneology which deserves very strong
and severely worded coniment as it is the Table given by Bharuach Wahlbanchs at the instance of Umargam People. Like Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 it commences with one Udaisingh and puts another Udaisingh at the Sixth step. It makes Kubersingh and Bhagwan singh Grand song of Gulabsingh ir sterd of his sons. And continues natural descents of Guman singh line in persons of his two natural sons Gumarsingh and Kiratsingb. It gives four sons Chandrasingh, Dculatsingh, Amarsingb, and Kesarisingh. to Goomansingh. It points extinction of Cha. ndra and Doulat' lines but depicts continuation of Amar singh & Kesarisingh's lines in the persons of Gulabsingh and Gemalsingh. On the other hand it gives four sons to Mansingh of Junior branch Viz; Gumansingh, Pahadsingh. Anupsingh and Kiratsingh. Further on it gives two sons to Gaman singh Viz., Amara baba and Kesarbaba and puts one sonto eachnamely Gulabsingh and Gemalsingh. If willsuffice to say that this table is an amplification of Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and is prepared intenticnally,
Nos 4/4. This is an upto date one. A comparative glauce over
no. 1 will convince our readers atonce that these two tables materially differ. Though in both, the Sixth man is said to have eight sons; but in details of name and order fundamental differences exist. In No. 1 ( not