VYAVASTE#A*IDAR,PANA 361 Can the property received by a wife, mother, or grandmother, when partition is made, be disposed of by her like her Strödham, or must it be held as received in right of affinity, and incapable of being alienated by her (without a legal cause)? To this, JAGANNATHA has made conflicting replies assenting to both. In one place he says: “the share allotted to a wife and the rest, like that which is given to a son, may be disposed of at their pleasure. Hence, like female property, the gift, sale, or other alienation of that share is valid: for it is equally given her by her husband and the rest.” In another place he affirms: “Nor should it be objected that since the share of a wife is in a manner (gratuitously) given, it ought to be held similar to female property. Being received in right of the relation of a wife to her husband, it is justly considered as similar to connected property, or wealth devolving on heirs in right of affinity+”. A few of the modern lawyers, concurling in the former opinion, have said: “property obtained by a wolman in partition is to be held as her Strödhan, given by the husband and the rest, it being more in the mature of a gift, than what she succeeds to in her own right.” But most of them have con curred in the latter exposition of JAGA NNATHA, it being grounded on the opinion of SRI's RISNA TARKALANKAT, , and more consistent with reason. “Such being the case, would her daughter succeed to such wealth on her death, if she leave no male issue, although a son born of another wife " (of her husband) be living 3 No; for the text * after her, let the heirs take it,” may relate solely to property received by the wife in right of her connection (by marriage') as easily as it may relate to the property of the husband, in which the wife has an interest; since there is no argument, on which one meaning should be selected in preference to the other, and the right of the husband's heirs has been alone propounded. Again; the equal title of her own son, and of one born of another wife, is admitted $.” The following therefore should be the rule of decision : 189 She will only enjoy the property, restraining herself until her death; after her, the heirs of the former owner will take it. When a distribution is made by a father, if his own mother be living, no share is ordained for her; since the law has only ordained the allotment of a share to the mother, when partition is made by sons with each other. It should not be argued, that her partition may be deduced from the law which ordains the allotment of a share to a grandfather, in the case of partition among grandsons. This is not partition made by her grandson, but by her sons; it is, therefore, a distribution made by her own son."[
- Coleb. Dig- Vol. III. p. 27. + Coleb. IDig. Vol. I1I. p. 24.
t SRI'Kaishna Tarkatanka'aa does not admit the validity of sale or other alienation by a wife and the rest, Coleb. IDig. Vol. III. p. 27. § Colob. Dig. Vol. III. p. 28. . *I Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. p. 81. Wyavasthá
