VYAVASTHA*IDARPANA. 591 The third case is that of Ram Kumaor Nya yaba chaspati versus Krishna Kinkar Tarkabhúshan, decided by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut on the 24th of November 1812. In that case it was maintained that the gift by a father of the whole ancestral estate to one son, to the prejudice of the rest, or even to a stranger is a valid act, (although an immoral one,) according to the doctrine received in Bengal.” Various cases have been cited in the “Considerations on the Hindu Law,” in which wills made by Hindus have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The following perhaps are the most remarkable of the cases cited :— In the case of Nabakrishna Mittra and others rersus Harish Chandra Mittrn and another, the bill of complaint prayed a partition notwithstanding the testator Gokul Chandra Mittra in his will, after giving certain property as decottar for the worship of the deity Asudan Mohan Ji and other idols, declared in the nost express terms that his estate should remain undivided.h By the decree the will was established, and the provisions which the testator made for his idols were particularly considered, but inspite of his express intention a partition was ordered according to the proportions directed by him in his will. Sir Francis Macnaghten remarks : “had it not been for the will, it (the partition) must of course have been equal. IIence, I think, we may conclude, although a father may be allowed by the been enjoyed, according to the custom of the country, an ingredient in their determination ; as may appear from the extract inserted in the appendix. Another thing to be remarked is. that the Court. not satisfied with the sum specisied in the former of the two wills, as a provision for the plaintiff, (being only 250 rupees per month), took upon itself to increase it to 500, upon the ground, as the decree declares. that the former sum was inadequate to his “ situation and circumstances.” This tends to show that even, in !3engal, under the modern practice, the father of a family, according to his means, c. 111 ot, leave it inadequately provided for, much less entirely destitute. Stränge's Hindu Law, vol. I. pp. 202–235.
- To refute the opinion declared by the Pandits on that occasion, it is merely necessary to state the authorities quoted by themu, which, would have leon more applied »lo to the maint manoe of the opposite doctrine. The following were the alrthorities eited in support of the above յայւoո: 1 st. "I'lı e text of Vishnu, cited in the Daoyabha ga . “When a father. separate; his Romt, srolu himself, li; will regulates the division of his own acquired wealth.” 2nd. A quotation also from the Dasyathrya - “The father has ownership in gems, pearls, and other novables, though inherited from the grandfather, որd not recovered by him, just as in his own acquisitious : and has power to distribute thent tı nequally ; as JA ფა \ А V A t.kY А, intimates : The father is master of the gouns, pearls, and corals, and of all (ally movinble property,) but neither the father mor the grandfather is so of the whole impmovalsı.. ***t Since the grandfather is here mensioned, the text must relate to his effects. Iły again saying. “all” after specifying ‘genus, pearls,' &c. it is shown, that the father has authority to make a gift or any similar disposition of all effects other than land, &c. but not of innmovalles, a corody, and chattels. (i. e. slaves ; ) since here also it is said “the whole,” this prohiloition forbids the gift or other. alienation of the whole, because (imunovables and similar possessions are) means of supporting the family. For the nisintenace of the so mily is an ul
·lispensable obligation. ąs M » Nu positively declares : „, ' The support of persons who should ಹಿಲ್ಲ 3nnitptnilygd, is the approved means of attaining heaven : but hell is the man's portion if they suffer. Thirefore (let a master of a family) carefully maintain them. The prohibition is not "gainst a donation or ಆಳ್ವ fer of a small part, not incompatible with the ಶ್ಗ' of the family : for the insertion of 臀 `ಲ್ಡಿ! - wholi. would be unmeaning (if the gift or even a small part were forbidden.) The text of 3 so Ny Av Aokyo. cited in Prayashchitta-viveka . ." From , the non-performance of acts which are e njoined, from * the commission of acts which are declared to be criminal, and from not. exerci:in:;a control over t ho passions. man incurs punishment in the next world.” An examination of the authorities Y quoted, as given by the law officers in the ease in question, will make it evident flat they are totally insufficient for the support of the doctrine to which they were intended to apply. Macn. H. L. vol. I. pp. 8–10. + Namely ; * Exclusive of the sixed &c. property, which I give to the deities as written above, my paternal and self-acquired fixed &c. property, subject to rent and rent-free zemindareds and talooks.
