পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৪৩

vyAvASTHA-DARPANA 117 " * The Sudder Court was satisfied from the opinion of their law officers in this and several other cases, from the authorities quoted by them, and the rules laid down in the Dayabhaga (a work of the first authority in the Bengal system of law,) that the consent of the husband's paternal kindred, as being the legal guardians and advisers of the widow (though not in all cases the nearest heirs,) is necessary (except under certain special circumstances) to the validity of an alienation by the widow (even with the consent of the husband's maternal kindred) of any part of the estate devolving to her, on her husband's death. But it appeared in this case that the deed of gift executed by the respondent in favour of Ananda Lál Khán, had been not only without the consent of her husband's paternal kindred, but in opposition to their remonstrances ; that there was no sufficient motive for any gift such as the Hindu law requires in such cases, and that therefore the deed (of gift) under which the appellant claimed to hold the zemindary was void ab initio. Under these circumstances, the Court, without taking evidence respecting the authenticity of the deed of relinquishment exhibited, passed a decree, affirming the decision of the Provincial Court, and dismissing the appeal with costs. 81st August 1812. Mohan Lál Khán, appellant, versus Ráni Shiromani, respondent. S. D. A. R. vol. II. p. 82. The greater part of the Vyāvasthā delivered in this case is, 1st.—On the death of the widow, the survivors...being the sons of the Rajá's mother's brothers, the descendants of Lakkhyan Singh (the great grandsire of the great grandfather of Rajá Ajit Singh), and the descendants of Lakkhyan Singh's brother, the sons of his mother's brothers, will be legal heirs, in default of nearer kinsmen; and if the deed - of gift executed by the Râni be invalid, they will be entitled to succeed to the zemindary left by Ajit Singh. 2nd.—Although the respondent (the widow,) with full information and free will, may have signed the deed of gift, and in pursuance of that deed, Ananda Lálshe donee, may have obtained possession of the property given, and although the sons of the maternal uncles of Rajã Ajit Singh (who, after the Rāmi's death,’ will be entitled to succeed to the estate of her husband) may have voluntarily executed the deed of relinquishment exhibited by the appellant, still the donation.specified in the deed of gift is contrary to law, and is not valid ; because the consent of two of the Rajá's maternal uncle's sons does not appear to have been obtained ; because the deed of gift does not bear the attestation of those heirs who are alleged to have subscribed the deed of relinquishment ; because a moiety (or a portion) is not reserved for the obsequies of the deceased proprietor, as the law requires ; because a gift of the whole landed estate and household effects is contrary to legal usage, which authorises only suitable gifts in proportion to the wealth of the party ; and because the deed of gift does not contain the permission of the Rajá's paternal kindred, who were then and are still living. They who have voluntarily signed the deed of relinquishment, cannot legally claim in opposition there to ; but they who have been compelled, are not bound by it. 3rd–As the gift specified in the hebananah for the whole landed estate and household effects is not legal, the assent of the heirs of Rajá Ajit Singh thereto is of no avail. In än opinion delivered by the Pandits in the case of Rúpcharn Mahápátra versus A'nanda Läl Khán abovementioned, it was expressly stated that, if the Râni's gift to the latter was not sanctioned by her husband's family, it is utterly null and void ; that what has been so given must be considered as not given; and that the restoration of property held under a void gift should be enforced by the ruling power. ... . - $ - - No. CXXIV-11th August 1819. Kāshí Náth Basāk and another v. Hara Sundari Dási and Kamal Mani Dási. Judgment of East, C. J. — This cause was heard before the Court on the 5th December 1814, when the Court, amongst other things, decreed that Bishwa Nāth Basāk (the succession to whose property was in litigation in the suit), having died without issue, the defendant, Hara Sundari Dási, as his widow, was, by the Hindu law, entitled to an interest for her life in the whole of his immovable or real estate, and to an absolute interest in the whole of his movable or personal estate, and directing an account of the personal estate. There were subsequent proceedings upon a re-hearing and upon a supplemental bill filed for the purpose of establishing certain testamentary papers, the proof of which - ... ." D 4 - Case bearing on the vyavasthás . Nos. 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 41, 43, and 44. -