WYAWASTHA-DARPANA. 774 It was next objected that he himself took an interest under the will, as having the custody and care of certain real property for his son till he came of age. But the Court overruled the objection, the party taking no beneficial interest, but only as a bare trustee; and they would have admitted the witness, but on another objection, a doubt occurring whether he might not have an interest in a possible event in the equity suit, out of which this issue was directed; the witness was withdrawn. East's Notes, No. XLV. Sittings after first term, 1816–See Morley's Digest, Vol. II, p. 65. G. persus K. “K, a Hindu, the defendant in this case, married G, the lessor of the plaintiff, a Hindu woman of the same cast, according to ceremonies used by others of that cast, and had many sons and daughters by her. All the sons died long before the year 1193 B.S., but some of daughters are living. In 1193, K, for the purpose of having male issue, married J, with whom he received no marriage portion, but a small present from her father of clothes, ornaments, and furniture. Before this last marriage, G, quarreling with her husband on that subject, threatened to destroy herself, or quit his house and live elsewhere, if he married any other woman. In order to pacify her, K signed a paper, whereby he gave her, amongst other things, three dwelling houses and a hals, and a garden, with jut saying whether for life or for ever. One of those houses descended to K from his father ; and the rest were purchased by himself. Besides the houses so conveyed, K was in possession of two other houses, consecrated to Shiva, from which he received rents, and out of those rents provided things necessary for the idol. J has had no child, but G has borno children to the defendant K since the execution of the aforesaid paper, and one child since process was commenced by her against her husband. K did not deliver possession, according to the writings, either of the premises in question or of the other things conveyed thereby, but G continued to live in one of the houses, as she had done for many years before; and she now brought this action against her husband to obtain possession of the said three houses and a half. The following questions were put to the Pandits. 1st. Dues a gift made by a husband to a wife, in such a manner, and on such an occasion, as stated above, give the wife a right to sue her husband for the property given? 2nd. Is such a gift to be understood as a gift for life only, or has the wife a right to well the houses in her life-time, or to devise them at her death 2 The Pandit Goverdhun Kowl Sherma gave the following answers. Answer to the lst Q. Whatever property & man who has married two wives has given to the first wife, by means of a paper witnessed, in order to satisfy her in all respects, such property is the property of the wife. In order to recover such property the wife may sue *"cording to what the Siétra directs, in like manner as for a debt, 影
Caso bearing on the Wyavaktha's, Nus. 430 +32, and $36,
