VYAVASTHAZDARPANA Ił9 failed altogether ; and upon “the acqount taken v before the Master, the personal estate of Bishwa Nith Basāh was, on the 7th November 1815, reported by him to amount to Rs. 274,700, in Company's securities at six per cent, together with some other personal estate of small alpiount. ... On which an order was made on the 8th April 1816 for transferring those sums to the account of Hara Sundari, and a final decree passed. A bill of review has been filed (on the 9th September, 1818), assigning for error in the interlocutory decree of the 5th December 1814, that Hara Sundari, the widow of Bishwa Náth Basāk, is not, by the Hindu law, entitled, as declared by that decree, “to an absolute interest in the whole of his movable or personal estate, or any part thereof, nor to any interest in the same, other than for the term of her natural life, subject to the several powers, restrietions, and qualifications, in and by the Hindu law in such case ordained and provided.” Other errors are assigned in the decree of the 8th April 1816 that as Hara Sundari Dass is a childless widow of a Hindu, and incapable again of contracting wedlock, and the complainants are the next legal heirs and representatives of her deceased husband, Bishwa Nāth Basāk, "and, as such, entitled to the whole of his estates and property ou her decease, the Company's securities and cash, standing in the books of the Accountant-General to the credit of Bishwa Náth Basāk, ought not to have been decreed to be transferred generally to her credit, but only in trust for her, or for her use and enjoyment, during her natural life, subject to such powers, restrictions, and qualifications, as are by-the Hindu law provided. And also for that it is not ordered by either of the said decrees that Hara Sundarf Dási should abide or reside with and under the care, protection, and guardianship of the complainants, who, as surviving brothers of Bishwa N5th Basāk, are alone entitled, by the Hindu law, to the care, guardianship, and protection, of his widow. Upon the last ground of error the Pandits have uniformly answered that the widow was not bound to live with her husband's relatives. Ts a widow, from any other cause than for unchaste purposes, ceage to reside in her husband's family, and take up her abode in the family of her parents, her right would not be forfeited. Here there was a good cause at the time; viz. the extreme youth of the wife, and no pretence was made of the prohibited cause. The great question which has been raised is, whether the widow takes the personal estate devolving. on her at the death of her husband, absolutely. I shall consider 1st.—What right the husband had over his real and personal estate.
- 2ndly.—What interest the widow takes in either by devolution, on his death without male issue,
according to the text writers on the Hindu law, and other Hindu authorities, either native or British. 3rdly.—How far the decisions which have taken place in this Court have decided the question, It seems to be clear, from the Dayabhaga, that a Hindu may dispose of his self-acquired property, whether real or personal, as he pleases. And although, in partition of ancestral property between a father and his sons, he is limited to take a double, of two shares ; yet in some passages ( of I)ացaծեa՛ga) it seems to be admitted that “he is competent to sell, give, or abandon the property.” In , the case of Nimái Charam Mallik in this Court, in 1867 or 1808, Mr. Gompton stated that it was considered, that “ though a Hindu could not properly dispose of patrimonja) estate without the consent of his sons, yet if he do, the disposition is valid.” 参 象 كة يه The Pandits in this case (in which, they ğifğered frosp five of their brethren), declared that a gift of money or other movable property made by the widow other than such as is allowed by law, is invalid, and may be recovered back, not only, by the next heis, but by herself, and in which they differed from the Sudder Pandits, who thought the gift | as against herself, though not against the next heir. * تیمه * *, * ^క్కు , In the MS. judgment of Mr. Haripgton upon, the case ు Bhaiyá Jhs, in 1812, in the Sudder řewanny Adawlut; which] have seen, after ఫిఖీ. and the Chenta mani aste works ofthe highe? autoily i# Tirho ‘...he concludes, attor stating ງູpasagess “From these passages of most undoubted gtండ్రొక్ష &ident that the widow ywer to consume, or to give, or ૬૬]], în her lifetime, thẻ movaồles ႏိုင္ငံႏိုင္ငံ màỹ°hảve devoiveằ*ipon her by the death of the husband, but hảs no power
