পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/১৬৭

عثبتات‘‘ج‘ ٹن vYAvAstHA*rsAfvpANA 41 . This action was tried on the 11th, 12th, and 14th April, before a full court, and was then adjourned in order to obtain the opinions of Pandits upon the following case : Jagnya Datta, a married Hindu, dies, leaving a married son, named Deva Datta. The son takes possession of the property. After two years, the son dies, leaving a widow, but no issue. Is the widow of Jagnya Datta entitled to any part of it 2 - - Of the Pandits, Gobardhan Kamal Sarmă declared the defendant, i. e. the mothér of plaintiff's husband, entitled to the property. The court, however, rejecting his Vyavastha, gave judgment. for lessor of the plaintiff upon the Vyavasthri of Ramcharan Sarmă, who having quoted for authority i. e. Bachanas or verses of Vrihaspati, and the subsequent passage of Vimtitavahana’s Dāyabhāga joya. p. 31), and Jägmzyavalkya and part of the verses of Vishnu (Pya. p. 29), and Kultūka Bhatta's comments on Manu, delivered his opinion, saying “according to the Vyavastérnava by Raghunath Sárvabhouma, and according to the Dáyutativa of Rughunundana Smārta Bhattáchárjya, and according to the Vivádaratnákara by Chandeshwara, and according to the Vivádachintámami by Váchaspati Misra, and according to the comment on Manu by Kullúka Bhatta, and according to the Mitálcshará by Bhattāraka Paramahansa, and other authorities in use, I have given my opinion.” S. C. Chamber not...s, April 11, 12, 14, July 11, and Nov. 18, 1794. Montriou's Cases of the Hindu law. p. 353. V. A childless widow sued her husband's brothers for her husband's share ; and thcy pleaded . ... cir deceased brother made over his landed property to them; before he died ; and that the or air ...tr was only entitled to maintenance. The court required an opinion from their Pandits, - he cluer, supposing the husband of the claimant to have executed the conveyance (termed Satzty et tya, ,atra) set up by respondents, during severe illness whereof he died four days after, it was good 1:... is a 2 The pundits replied that “severe illness did not prevent the validity of a gift of property .it, vable o. of on movable ; if the person executing it were of sound mind at the time, the gift was’ valid : if he were not of sound mind at the time, it would not avail." The deed was rejected on *"ure of proof of this point, and judgment passed in favour of the widow, as heir to her husband's estate, revertible at her demise to the husband's next heirs. 27th September 1834. Rádhámani 1967-3 versus Shim Chandra and Rudra Chandra—S. D. A. Rep. vol. I. p. 85. * v. In the case of Rajkishore set versus Srimati Tanumani Raur and another, the Supreme Court at first made a mistake in attempting to restrict the widow of an undivided brother (in Bengal) maintenance : but ultimately declared her entitled to enjoyment of her husband's share. Monoriou's Cases of the Hindu law. p. 413. . RādhāCharn Ráy versus Krishna Chandra Roy—25th February 1801. S. D. A. Rep. vol. I. p. 33 Räjbalhab Bhuyän versus Musst. Banitä- Dei-14th August 1801. S. D. A. Rep. vol. I. p. 44 Nil Kánta Rāy versus Mani Choudharāni—25th June 1802. S. D. A. Rep. vol. I. p. 58. Sri Nath Sărmă versus Rádhá Kánta—24th November 1796. S. D. A. Rep. vol. I. p. Gour Hari Dás and his elder brother, the defendant, inherited laud from their father, and were, with their mother and sistors, an undivided family. Gour Hari died without issue : his widow, the lessor of the plaintiff, brought this action for an undivided half share of the family houses and land, which were in Calcutta. The mother, being called by the lessor of the plaintiff, proved, on cross examination, that the latter had, after her husband's death, been incontinent, and long since voluntarily quitted the house aud protection of her husband's family. She was, at the time of the action, living with her own father and brothers. The court (present, Chambers, C. J. Hyde, Jones, and Dunkin, Js.) being of opinion, that the lessor of the plaintiff had, under Hindu law, forfeited, by her incontinence, her right to her husband's estate, monsuited her. Rádhámani Raur versus Nirmani Dás.-S. C. Montriou's Cases of the Hindu law p. 314,315 - - - - See also the case of Gokulchandra Chakrabattí versus Ráj Rání and Joygopául Choudhúrí -S. D. A. R. vol. II. p. 167. - - Κ