পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৭১৯

VYA V ASTHA'-IDARPANA. of 97 part of the will he male an absolute gift, and again in a subsequent part he made it conditional and retractable, declaring “plaintiff and the other legatees or their respective heirs to forfeit all right under the will respectively, in case of making any claim upon Rajkrishna for more than is bequeathed by the will.” His right to do so was not questioned by any one; and by a decree passed in June 1800, (after Gopi Mohan Deb and Rajao Rajkrishna had settled their disputes,) it was declared that they should take the estate and property of Raja Nabakrishna as tenants in eommon; subject neverthless, to all the provisions, made by the last will and testament of stafa' Nabakrishna, except only as to those provisions which respect Gopi Mohan Deb and Rajá Rijkrishna. See Cons. H. L. p. 356. And Montriou's Cases of the IIindu Law, p. 899. Similar judgments have been passed in almost all the subsequent cases regarding gift or will. Some of them in substance are as follows :-- In the case of Ra"m Nasraoyan Datta and others versus Sutbansi” and others, it was held that a deed of gift may be valid though clogged with certain conditions, and a person may convey all his property to another, thougll there be stipulations in the deed, that the donor should be maintalmed by the donee during his life-time, and that the exeguial ceremonics of the former should be performed by the latter in consideration af the gift. 23rd June 1842. S. D. A. R. vol. 1 I 1. p. 377. In the case of Ta’rini Charan versus Mussumat Dassi Dasi, it was held that a IIindu of Bengal may lawfully convey all his property, by a deed of gift, to his brother, notwithstanding that he has a wife living. 31st July 1842. S. D. A. R. vol. III. p. 397. In the case of Jaga Mohan Raoy versus Sri'mati Nímu Da sí, it was held that a Hindu having sons living may dispose of immovable ameestral cetate by will, without their consent. 21st June 1831. Clarke's Notes of decided Cuses, pp. 101–119. Shūrja Kumaor Tha’kur's widow filed a bill claiming as her husband’s heir, and denying the existence of the will, by which he left a sum of money to his wife, and all the rest of his property, movable and immovable, ancestral and self-acquired, to his brothers : the will was well proved and no further question was raised. Cons. H. L. pp. 360, 361. In the case of Raghu Nath Parl’s will it was held that a father may distribute sel f-acquired property, movable and immovable, by will uncoually among younger sons, leaving his eldest son a simall monthly allowance. Cons. H. L. pp. 369, 370. The will of Ra"m Hari Bishwa's, by which he left Pran Krishna three-fourths, and Jaga Mohan one-fourth, of his landed or immovable property, was established and held valid, no objection being raisel whether Ram Hari could not make an unequal distribution of immovable property by his will. Cons. H. L. pp. 870, 871. Many of the wills made a provision for idols' establishments, and directed an expenditure for superstitious purposes ; and they all have been carried to effect. Cons. H. L. p. 322. In the case of Ra"m Dulal Sarkar and Choitanya Charan Set versus Srimati Sona Debi and others, the will of Radha Kanta Chattopadhyay was completely established as to all its provisions, and the court mont fully recognised the right of a Hindu to make provision by his will for the performance of religious ceremonies and the maintenance of his family idols. Cons. Н. Га. рр. 313–385