পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৪১

VYAVASTHA*.DARPANA 1 I 5 A widow, succeeding to the possession of property, whether in right of her husband or adopted son, is not at liberty to give it to the son of her one daughter, or to settle it to one heir, while there was another daughter capable of bearing a son and there was a possibility that a co-heir luight be subsequently born. Such gift was pronounced void, and it was determined that, on the decease of the widow, her two daughters (both having male issue at the time) were entitled to equal shares of the cstate, as the legal heirs. Musst. Bijoyá Debi versus Musst. Annapurná Deli, 26th september 1806. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. 1. р. 162. Itání Shirmomani sned Ananda Lál Khán to recover from him the zemindary of purgunnahs Midnapore, &c. setting forth in her plaint, that the defendant who was her servant had imposed upon lier a hebahmamah, or deed of gift, as a moksárminuh, or power of attorney, which she had intended to execute; that under this hebahnd mah, thus fraudulently obtained, the defendant had caused her (plaintill's) zemindary to be entered in the public records in his own name, had entered into engagements for the public revenue and received possession from the collector. The defendant stated, in answer, that the Rání (plaintiff') had executed the hebahnāmah in question with a full knowledge of its contents, and had repeatedly acknowledged it to the collector, who had in consequence put the defendant in possession; and that she was now induced by the arts of those about her, to set up this claim. The hebahnaimah purported to make over to the defendant her zeanindary and house hold property, without any reservation or provision for her own support. It bore date the 30th of June IS00. and was registerell in the Zillali Court on the 31st July following. The zemindary in dispute had devolved to the Rání or the death of her husband, Ajit Singh, which occurred in 1756. In the year Ist)0, when the above deed had been excentetl, the landed property of the Răni was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, as the estate of a disqualified zemindar. The pandit of the Provincial Court, in answer to a reference made to him by the Senior Judge, delivered a ryarasthis declaring “ that if Ráni Shirnomani had made a gift of the estate, which devolved to her, on the death of her husband, without the consent ef the surviving lieirs of the husband, such gift was invalid.” Subsequent to the delivery of this rytasthi (the apiellant).A ‘manda Lál filed a lidori, or deed of relinquishment., bearing the signatures of Balabhalara Bhànyà l'édhá (;obinda Ishānyā, and Kuchil, inatormal first cousins of the deceased Rājā: This deed purported that the subscribing parties had, at the time of the execution of the hehahnāmah, acquiesced in it; that hey now did so and renounced all claim to the estate. No other proof of the consent, of the heirs of Ajit Sigh was ostered by the appellant. The Senior Judge of the Provincial Court, on the ground that the deedof gift executed by the IRámi not having been executed with the consent of all the heirs of Ajit Singh soviving at the time, was void and of no rstect, passed a decree, adjudging that the estate in dispute shold be placed under the custody of the Court of Wards for the benefit of the Râni, that the defendant hould account for the not proceeds of the estate from the date of the IRání’s plaint. Mohan Láliaving succeeded to the rights of his brother A handa Läl, who demised while the suit was pending before he Provincial Court, preferred an appeal from the above decree to the Sudder I)ewauny Adawlut. It was immitted by the appellant, that when the hebahnāmah was executed, there were living five maternal first casins of the looji Ajit Singh. Four persons now came forward, calling themselves rehtions and heirs of Hjá Ajit Singh rix. Shyimuánada Mahāpātra and Gājráj who stated themselves to be doscended in the dire-line from lakkhyan Singh, the great grandsire of the great grandfather of Ajit Siligo Rāmcharan Mahāpātra, who stated themselves to be descended from a brother of Lakkhyan and who had presented a petition to the Zillah Judge, praying that liãmi Shiroman might be prevento from making a douation of her estate to the injury of the legal heirs, which she was then about to do, inslinced by the fraud and intimidation of Asnanda Lál. The respondent gave in a list of twenty-nine perso, included in the genealogical table exhibited by her, as sagotra, or paternal kinsmen of Ajit Singh, at stated to be them alive. The only evideneo adduced by the appellant in support of his claim was the afobaid lådavi. One of the persons executing the lădăví positively denied all knowledge of the documentend others pleaded ignorance of its contents and duress. 'use having refers ince s to the vyavast hás Nos. 2: 11 & 83. ( ኀmSዮ litaring on tł:“ vyava-t':ís Nos. 41. 12. 43. & 4 4.