VYAVASTHAT-DARPANA I25 7th. Q. Does this answer apply equally to movable and immovable property 2 They first answered, “It applics equally to both movable and immovable property.” But then they added: “Fixed property given by a husband to a wife is not alienable by her.” Now if the estate which a woman receives on partition, either as a widow or as a mother, is to be considered as in the nature 6f Stridhana, it has been already shewn that she takes it absolutely, but cannot alien the real estate, though given to her by her husband in his lifetime, but that after her death it shall go to his heirs : a fortiori, therefore, she could not alien his real property, which simply devolved upon her at his death. The Kárfarmá's case has decided that the estate, which both a widow and a mother takes in the property of her husband on partition, follows the rule which is expressly given by the Dáyabha ga as to Striothana, namely, that she takes the personalty absolutely, but the realty only for life. The decision of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut in Bhaiyā Jhā’s case took place very recently, before the decision of this Court in the Kárfarmă's case ; and it is not improbable that the recollection of the two decisions (by both of which the personalty was given to the widow absolutely, and the realty for life only) might be blended together, so as to leave an impression upon the minds of those who heard of them at that time that the doctrine of Ratna kara and the Chinta mani was applied generally to Bengal. But when it is now ascertained that the ope decision was made in respect of lands in Tirhoot, where those books give the rule ; arra that the other was made in a case of partition, where the Da yabha ga gives the same result. though by a different rule ; the variant éonclusions in the different cases will not be inconsistent, nor the cloctrine of the two courts-contradictory. 弱 The next case, that of Shib Chandra Basu (Bose) persus Guru Prasād Basu and others, decreed finally on the 7th August 1813, was also a case of partition,” and is therefore capable of receiving the same answer. To the two other cases which here occurred, the one of Srimati Jagamohini Däsi widow of Madan Mohan Gupta versus Rám Mohan Gupta, decreed on the 23rd June 1814, and the other of Jupada Raur, rersus Jagan Náth Thäkur, decreed on the 7th February 1816, the same answer cannot be given. Iłut those cases passed without argument at the bar, upon a full understanding that the point had been before expressly decided by this Court, upon the misunderstanding, as it now appears, of the Kárfarmá's case, or the misblending and imisrecollection of that with Bhaiyā Jhā’s case. The result, then, of the whole is this, that unless the authority of the Ratna kara and &stata mani 圣道直”缓° to give the rule on the point in judgment in Bengal, the decree in its present form is erroneous, and it appears, by the general opinion of the Pandits of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, and of our own, supported by the authority of Mr. Colebrooke, and in effect by the decisions in the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, in Bhaiyā Jhá's case, and other cases, where the doctrine of those books has been applied to cases on the specific ground of their arising in Tirhoot, that the same doctrine does not apply to Bengal, being in opposition to the doctrine of the Dayabhaga, which is the ruling authority in the province, and it seems that, by the Dayabhaga, no distinction is taken between the realty and personalty as to thic quantum of the widow's estate, but the whole appears to be given to her absolutely for some purposes, though restricted in her disposition as to others ; and therefore she takes more than a life estate in the realty for those allowcd purposes, and less than an absolute estate in the personalty for other and different purposes ; and if this be so, the decree cannot be supported in its present form. But at present it is sufficient to overrule the demurrer, without specifying the particular form in which the decree 1,1-ay ultimately be drawn up. - The decree passed after this, is to be found in the following judgment of the Privy Council, q. v. Note by Sir. E. H. East.—There was “an appeal against this decree ; and, soon after it was pronounced, an application was made to the court to direct the payment over to the widow of the whole of the personal estate in the hands of the Master, together with the accumulation of interest. This, however, was opposed by the next male heir Kfishi Nāth Basāk and by Kamal Mani.
- See Macm. Cons. H. L., p. 69.
F 2 -
