VYA VASTA?.DAR.PANA I31 It has been argued however, that, if she have only a limited interest in the personalty, she ought not to have the possession, but that it ought to be secured for those who may become entitled to it after her death, or what may remain of it after having disposed of any part of that property, in the way she is authorised to do by the Hindu law. But the answer to this argument appears to be this—that is not the Hindu law, but, on the contrary, the widow of the deceased husband is the person who by the law is entrusted with the possession of that property, without restriction; and mo, case has been produced to shew, that the right has ever been interfered with, according to the Hindu law, or any attempt to dispute it in any court of judicature. . We think therefore; that the Hindu widow, by the Hindu law, is entitled to the absolute possession of the property. With respect to the extent of the widow's interest, and the right of dominion over it, considerable difficulty might arise, if the authority of the books I have first mentioned, the Chinta mani and the Ratnākara, prevailed in Bengal. It would seem, that they would warrant the decree, that she was entitled to an absolute right in the movable property, and a life-interest only in the real estate ; but the Pandits say, that the authority of the Ratnākara and the Chinta mani is overruled by the ZOa#yabha~ga and Daoyatatna, in which no distinction is made between movable and immovable property, that for many purposes she has an absolute interest in both properties. I will now read the other part of the answer to the first question, and to which I before referred. The question . is “ If a Hindu widow succeed to the property of her husband dying without male issue, what inerest does she take in his immovable property, and what in his movable property ?” The answer is, “According to the Daoyabha ga and other Shāstras prevalent in Bengal, there is no distinction in this instance between nnovable and immovable property ; –tue widow has a life interest in both, and is entitled to the enjoyment of the same, and to dispose of the same by gift, mortgage, sale, or otherwise, for the beirefit of her departed husband's soul, even without the consent of ‘her husband’s kinsmen ; in so doing, she will observe moderation” (the Court-Pandits explained the word moderation, used by them, to mean generally moderation in expenditure ; other Pandits, present, say: moderation in diet and clothing. See V. D. p. 57) . .The court Pandits proceed-–" She has no authority whatsoever to dispose of the property by gift, and so forth, for worldly purposes, unconnected with religious purposes. without the consent of her husband's kinsmen ; if she does, such act is invalid. Religious purposes include a portion to a daughter, building temples for religious worship, digging tanks, and the like.” And then they say. “She may make gifts and donations to the relations of her deceased husband, and with the consent of her husband's kinmen, to her own family.” It does not appear that consent is necessary to make gifts and douations to the relations of her deceased husband ; the kinsmen of the husband have the priority, with reference to gifts, before her own family, because the widow is under their immediate control, it being incumbent on her to act as they direct. Then they are asked, “If she convey away his immovable property for other than an allowable cause, is such conveyance valid, against herself or the next heir of her husband ; and if she give away his movable property for other than an allowable cause, is such gift valid against herself or the next heir of her husband. f" The answer to that is, “Such gift as to immovable property is not valid against herself, or against the next heir of her husband ; the same would be invalid as to movable property. Jewels devolving on a widow as part of her husband's estate and given away without allowable cause, could be recovered by her or her husband's heirs the same as money.” Then they are asked, “Has a widow, so succeeding, an absolute interst in the property of her husband either moveable or immovable 2" A. “She has not an absolute interest in such property.—She has not an uncontrolled interest in that property.—She can do mothing of her own authority.” Q.- “.. Has a widow, so succeeding, a right to the possession of the movable property to which she has succeeded, subject to the control before mentioned 2" I have already stated the answer. They are of opinion, that she has right to the possession. They are then asked. “Where the consent of the husband's kinsmen is necessary to authorize the widow to make gifts, and so forth, for other than religious purposes, who are those kinsmen whose consent is requisite 2 " A. “ Those who are
- This I presume must have meant money due to thom. It is evident. I think, when the Pandits spoke of a jewel, they ment to be understood, that if any thing was given by a widow. without allowable canse. it might, if it conid be identified, be
- -
