9I that he into passed to thagappellant upon his purchase at a court sale, which can be comflried ஆ in apposition to . ஆம்ற made in this suit, and we secordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. ಕ್ಷೌಜ್ಜೇ allegations of waste gand fraud, on the part of the widow, in reference to which the 搏 igil Sydger. Ameen, in his, ... has adjudged that the plaintiff, the next heir shall obtain possession of the property held by the appellant before us, as well as other properties which had passed to the widow from the husbandoroviding only a suitable maintenance for her. The widow also at first appeáied to thịp Court, but subsequently allowed the appeal to be struck off on default. { have not therefore to notice the decree as it affects her. Káli Kánta Láhuri, Appellant, versus Gölåk Chandra Choudhuri Respondent, 30th detober 1849. S. D. A. R. pp. 405-410.
- ... The declaration in this suit is, that the taluk in question belonged to plaintiff's uncle, whose widow sold it to defendants, Mangal Manni and Níl Mani Debi's husband, which sales were illegal; and therefore plaintiff claims to annul them, and obtain possession. The pleas in defence are, that the plaintiff's father, in collusion with one Mohan Kánta Rāy, deprived the widow of his brother of the estate in question, when defendant's husband assisted her to sue, and supported her; that she eventually gained a decree for the property; and then to repay them, sold first 10 annas, and then 6 annas; and with the surplus of the purchase money, bought another property. The purchase money having therefore been expended in recovery of the estate, and for personal support and other legal objects, the sales are perfectly valid. -
The principal Sudder Ameen decided, on vyavastha's called for in the case, that the sales were illegal, and must be annulled; and as the widow had shown her readiness to injure the eventual heirs of the estate by selling it, there was no safety in putting her into possession. He therefore ordered that plaintiff, as next heir, be put into possession, on condition of duly paying over to the widow during her lifetime all the net profits from the estate; citing as a precedent a case confirmed in special appeal by the Sudder Court. * - In appeal, nothing new has been set forth or elicited; and as the sale was clearly illegal, and the decision of the Principal Sudder Ameen is just and equitable, it is affirmed, and appeal dismissed with full costs. Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, 12th September 1848. Mangal Mani, mother of Kunja Mohan Răy, (defendant.) ೫Pಳ್ತಂ, versus Rám Dullab Dás, guardian of Kur# Chandra D#s, (plaintifï) respondent. The widow of a childless Hindu sold the immovable estate of her husband, assigning in the deed as the only reason for selling it her incompetency to the management thereof. The sale was reversed, because such sale merely for reasons recorded by the widow is invalid under the Hindu Law; and as it appeared that no tidings had been heard of the widow since the institution of the suit in the Zillah Court in 1806, at which time she repaired to Benares, it was ordered that the contested lands be placed in deposit with the brothers of the widow's husband, until she be forthcoming; that in the event of her being forthcoming, provided she may not have committed any act involving expulsion from her tribe and exclusion from inheritance, the brothers (appellants) give her immediate possession. Gokul Chandra Chakrabarttí versus Musst Ráj Rání and Joy Gopál Choudhurí, 27th January 1816. S. D. A. Rep. vol. II. p. 167. ' ' The vyavastha delivered in this case was—" A woman cannot sell her husband's immovable estate to a stranger, expect for the completion of the husband's funeral rites or her own maintenance, umless with the sanction of her husband's heirs, to whose control she is subject, and on whom on her demise the sūccession will devolve." . . -
- Gangá Gobinda. Banerjea sued to recover possession of his deceased brother's estate, 7 annas of which were: aهiوقامتة غة 'annas were made over in gift by the deceased's widow. The Zillah Judge fiíding from the ryobiohá submitted by the Pandit, that the sale made by the widow of a 7 anna sňate of her ofäte flood's estate was valid, but that the gift of the 9 anna share was illegal, passed a
- 1 ఘో ఘో
.* #3rd November 1842-Dębá Mani Debí, petitioner. Case . bearing on tho wyawasthôs No8, 19 & 40. - Case bearing on the vyavasthas Nos, 99 & 39. Cate bearing on the Nos. 26, 29.&.34.
