VYA V ASTHAT IDA IR.PANA II 3 be determined by its peculiar circumstances. In the disposal of property by gift or otherwise, the widow is subject to the control of her husband's farmily, and the only general rule laid down by the law is: “ Let R * is Incant expences unproductive of
- waste
not a wife make waste of her husband’s property;” and by benefit to the owner of the property. Gists to her own family do not of course produce any such benefit, unless they should come within the general nature of alms, and are therefore invalid if made without the consent of her husband’s kindred. A widow is to reside in her husband's family, yet, as she forfeits her r:..ht to the property only loy not remaining chaste, or loy making waste, the mere residing with her own fannily can not cause a forfeiture of her right to the enjoyment of the property, if it is not done for unchaste purposes.” Pp. 73--75. She whose husband is deceased should support, in proportion to lier albility, the same persoils, and do the sanne acts, in the saine manner in which lier lausband, w beim li ving, supported tlose persons, and dicl tlıose acts. 13ut it is not ill solutely necessary that slie should sulfil the same voluntary offices which her husband did, such as supportin; Brai h matures residelit in the same town and the like. This is deduced from the termin “ un protect el personas.” (“ol el». I Dig. Vol. I L L. l». 1 (; l. Whi, ever the husband lial prolinised to give to a person, the same, after his deatlı, slould be given by the widow to the same person, as that also is a delt (of her husband). So says lix it 1 or A : “A proulists on:lle i 11 words, but not performed in deed, is a lebt (of conscience) both in this worldl and the next. I le who gives not whict he li:is promised, and he who takes what lic has given, sí til s to various regions of tornnent, a 11d si^rinngs again to loirth from the wommb of soine brute aninial.” Whatever (was) most desirable in the world, w luate vor was eagerly sought for by her husband. that should le given to some ineritorious man, by the widow, anxious to gratify her husband. Sutriti cited in Diya/a/rer, Re. The inforence is the salue when any otlier succeeds (to the estate of the deceased ). See Coleb. Dior. Vol. 11 1. p. 1 to 1. Loyal opinions delirered in, and admitted by, Contrfs of Judicature, and cramined and approvers of by Sir 11 (liam Macarosh/en. Q. A person of the 13raluminical class, having separated himself from his brothers, while living apart from then, acquired thirty-one loigh is and eleven kāthās of rent-free land, and by succession to his son, he became proprietor of sixty-three bigh is and seven kāthās of the same description of landed property which the son had obtained by gift. Having enjoyed these estates for some tinue, he died, leaving a widow, who succeeded him ; it ind she, while her lusband's brother's sons were living, made a gift of a portion of the landed estate to her own brother. She mentioned in the deed of gift, that the land was bestowed for the spiritual benefit of her late husb:ind. In this “ase, is the gift legal P IR. It does not appear from the question what quantity of the land w:is triven ; but the gist of a small part only of the estate, for the spiritual welfare of her deceased husland, "is legal ; because, although it is laid down in the Daytibhaiga and other books of law, that the widow of a deceased main who left no male issue, may only enjoy his property until her death, she is entitled to unake a gift of a small part of it for the locnefit of her husband, which, rf she do, the gift should be uplield as legal. Zillah I)inagpore, April 15th, 1820. Maen. I 1. L. Vol. I I. C'lı. 8, Case 37, pp. 241, 2 15. Q. On the death of the original proprietor, his widow made a gift of his entire property to her two grandsons, while their mother, that is the daughter, was living. In this case, is the gift binding and good? R. Supposing the widow, during the life-time of her daughter, to have made a gift of the whole property of her husband which devolved on her at his death by law of inheritance, without the express consent of her daughter, to her two grandsons, the gift is illegal, as it is a settled rule that the widow has only the right to c,joy her husband's property with moderation until her death. This is consonant to the doctrines cited in the Dayábhiya and other law tracts. Zillah Nuddea, Stlı Mareln 1826. Mae'ı ı. H I. I,. Vol. I I. Ch. 1 , Seetion. 3, ('ase 8, p. 48. C 3
