vyAvASTHA’-DARPANA 93 'decree awarding to the plaintiff possession of thể 9 anna portion, which defendant Rám Chanủra was directed to relinquish. This decree was affirmed by the Provincial Court. The Sudder Coult held that the widow of a Hindu, who died without issue, has the power of making a gift of a portion (from one to three sixteenths) of her late husband's property for his spiritual benefit; but such not appearing to the Court to have been the object of the gift in the present instance, the claim of the donee was disallowed, and the lower court's judgment was affirmed. - . The principal part of the vyavasthā given in this case is—“A widow having succeeded to the property of her deceased husband has the power of alienating by sale, so much of such property (and no more) as may be necessary for the payment of debts contracted by him, for her own subsistence, for the support of her husband's family, and for the performance of his exeguial rites. She may likewise make a gift proportioned to the extent of her late husbarta's property for the benefit of his soul. And if these objects (viz. payment of debts, expenses of Sraddha, &c.). cannot be effected "without the sale of all the property, she has the power of disposing of the whole of it. But she is not permitted to alienate by (gift or) sale the whole or even a part of the property solely at the suggestion of her own will or pleasure.—Råm Chandra Sarmā versus Gangá Gobinda Banerjea,-1st February 18:26, S. D. A. Rep. v ol. IV. p. 117. Krisna Kánta Sen having no son, executed a deed, whereby he granted to his senior widow Uijal Mani the whole of his acquired property, in the event of no son being born ; but in the event of a son being born, the property was to go to him. A son was born by her, but died before his father. The property in question was then declared to be vested in the son immediately on his birth; and on his . death, reverted to his father as his heir according to'Shastra. On the death of the father, it devolved on Ujjal Mani who sold Taraf Rasúlpur (part of the property). Krisna Gobinda Sen, brother of the said Krisna Kánta Sen deceased sued for reversal of the sale. As the Court saw that the defendant's plea—that Taraf Rasūlpur was sold to defray the expenses of the Srāddha of Krisna Kánta Sen, and pay his debts, was not at all established ; that the contrary was proved by the evidence; and that the cause of the sale assigned in the deed was the inability of the widow to pay the publick revenue assessed thereon ; they therefore reversed the sale, and declared the plaintiff, appellant, entitled to succeed to the property in right of inheritance from his brother.—Krisna Gobinda Sen rersus Lădli Mohan Thákur, 30th August 1819, S. D. A. Rep. vol. II. p. 309. ● The plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be the next heirs, sued to set aside certain sales and settlements made by Bolāki Bibi, widow of the late Lālā Doyāl Chānd Bábu, as prejudicial to their rights, as also to declare a will, made by the said Bibi, null and void, and to have the estates, movable and immovable, placed in their possession, a suitable allowance for maintenance being awarded to the вiьi. 弼 ...Judgment.–Messrs. A. Dick ནཱ་མ་ J. Dunbar.—The question which was first argued was whether an action instituted by reve eirs against as widow in her lifetime, to invalidate alienations by her of her husband's ancestral property, and &ipeg her in consquence, and to obtain possession themselves, will lie f At the close of the argument; we intimated our opinion that such an action will lie: that opinion was founded on the following grounds. We observe that both the precedents, eited by the pleaders on both.sides, and commented upon, that of 1816, decided by Mr. Ker,” and that of 1848, by Mr. Dick", concur in this point. Mr. Ker declared invalid the alienation by the widow, and gave possession to the heirs until the widow should reappear. Mr. Dick confirmed the decision “of the lower court, which declared the alienation invalid, and entrusted the management of the property to the heirs, reserving the usufruct to the widow. There can be no question that an action for waste will lie, because the Shāstra expressly authorises the heirs to restrain the widow from waste, and we consider this an action of a similar nature, and the misconduct alleged likely to be far more injuri'ous, as the purchasers must be aware that they hold their purchases only so long as the widow survives, and one of the acts, complained of goes so far as to extinguish the rights of the legal heirs entirely.
- See page 91, of this book.
X Case bearing on the vyavastha's Nos. 31, 29, 8, 40.
