vyAvASTHA-DARPANA Ios Káli Cம் Dutta versus John Moore an others. 20th March 1837. . I. Ryan C. J. delivered Judgment:—The whole question turns upon a Hindu widow's right to convey, the reversioners having previously conveyed to her in fee. That a grant made by a widow for her own life is good has been decided in this Court (V. D. p. 85.) The widow Râmpriyā Dási has survived her husband's immediate heirs or reversioners. In this case, the immediate reversioners conveyed to the widow, and the question is, whether the sons of these reversioners can set this conveyance aside ; that is to say, whether the sons on the death of the widow (their aunt) have a reversionary interest independent of their fathers, the immediate reversioners, or not. We think they claim through their ancestors and must be respectively bound by their acts. On these grounds we think the title valid, and there must be a verdict for the defendant. Grant and Malkin, Judges, concur. Fulton, vol. I. p. 73 II. Musst. Bhavāni Mani (appellant) under a written engagement, alleged to have been executed by Sugandhā, widow of Kunwar Nārāyan, claimed the Zemendaree left by him. The pandits in answer to the question proposed to them, said: ‘supposing Sugandhá to have executed the engagement, without the assent of the heirs (by descent from her husband's father Jadu Rām) then living, it will not avail against the right of these heirs to the Zemindaree, which decended from Jadu Rām to Kunwar Nārāyan; nor will it establish any title in the appellant'. It appearing from 'the above exposition of the Hindu law, that even allowing the engagement on which the appellant rested her claim to be authentic, it could not legally avail in favour of the appellant; the court of SudderDewanny Adawlut (present J. H. Harington) affirmed the decrees passed against the appellant. Musst. Bhavání Mani versus Musst. Sulakhyanā. S. D. A. Rep. vol. 1. p. 322. See the case of Mohan Lál Khān versus Rāmi Sheromani, decided by the Sudder Court on the 31st August 1812, and printed at page 32. S. D. A. Rep. vol. II. 41. Let her give to the paternal uncles and other relations of her husband presents in proportion to the estate, for the benefit of his departed soul". - Vrihaspati directs it, saying: “With Karya and parta (i)t, let her honor the patcrnal uncles (r) of her husband, his spiritual parents, and daughter's sons (l), the children of sisters (s), maternal uncles (a), and also old (briddha) and unprotected persons (u), guests, and females of the (family) (e)”. _ (r). The term “paternal uncle” intends any sapinda of her husbando. (l). “Daughter's sons" mean the decendants of her husband's daughter” (s). By “children of sister" is meant the progeny of her husband's sister's son". (a). “Maternal uncles"—signify her husband's mother's family. Ji'Mu'tava'usa. بیر See Coleb. Dá. bhá ch. XI. Sect. 1. para 63. Such is also the interpretation of Jocassor* Tanakaraven &awa. See Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. p. 462. ,
- Coleb. Dá, bhà. Ch. XI.Sect. 1. para 63. W. Da. Kra. Sang pp. b, 6. Colcb. Dig. vol. III. pp. 488—46*. Scc Alacn. H.
- . L. vol. I. p. 19. Elb, In, p. 74, Sect. 165. . . . + with kavya, that is, with a srāddha after death; and with parta, that is, with maintenance during life;-conformably to the literal sense ofthe verb pri, cherish and fill. But some lawyers expound the * Cases bearing on the vyavasthās Sos. 32 & s6. Vyawasthá Authority.
