VYAVAŞTHA'-DARPANA. 臀LL the sister's son is entitled to inherit from him, for he confers a benefit on the deceased’s ancestors by performing the double rites. - Authorities — ”,hould they give or sell their own shares, they do all that as they pleaseيدة - Narahi for they are stä
- Th ગ્રં : “Therefá §, since it is denied that a gift or sale should be made, the precept is infringed
by oaking one. But the gift or transfer is not null: for a fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts.” șters of their own wealth.” ionowables or bipeds,” &c. The right ஃister is denied by the following text. .م . . “Riches were ordained for sacrifice. Therefore they should be allotted to persons who are ・リ。 姆 德 她 n i в * 聪 concerned with religious duties, and not to be assigned to women, to fools, and to people neglectful of holy obligations.” ,嚇 By the mention of “women,” must be understood all females, except the wife, daughter, mother, paternal, grandmother, and father's grandmother of a person dying childless, Dacca Court of Appeal, June 21st, 1828. Mach. H. I. vol. II. Ch. 8, Case 20, pp. 228—230. Q. A person brought an action, claiming a third part of a certain landed estate, against the purchaser of the land, and his brother who had sold it; and previously to the decision, the complainant assigned his interest in the property in dispute by a deed of gift to his minor nephew, who was the son of the selling brother. In this case, is the deed of gift complete and binding; and in virtue of the same, is the minor donee's guardian authorised to carry on the suit for the estate, as the complainant was to do? R. If it be proved that the complainant, in the full possession of his intellectual faculties, executed the deed of gift, disposing of his entire interest in the property in dispute, in favour of his minor nephew, and subscquently died, the deed of gift is, according to law, good and valid; and by virtue of such deed the minor domee's guardian, as manager of his allairs, may earry on the suit for the property in question. Calcutta Court of Appeal, May 31st, 1821. Prem Chand versus Rasm Chandra Bhurja. Maon. II. L. vol. II. Chgs, Caso 23, pp. 881, Q. Is a person, having an uterine sister, competent to dispose of his -ancestral landed and other property by gift, in favour of a stranger? and if so, is his sister... entitled to get her maintenance out othe property giyಣ್ಣ, r. R. ‘It is competent to a person to give away his patrimonial property, movable and in..movable, though his uterine sister be living. If the sister be married, she has no right to have maintenanegout of the gift. City Chinsửah. Maen. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 8, Case 21, p. 232. ఙ్ఞ్న A person, by recourse to law, recovercd some of his father's acquired rent-free landed property à been formerly. lost, §e his other brothers were living together with him and his father as an undivided and j Hamily, and the father verbally gave the pro | " . . . . . o A. plaintifią ay make a gift of the property he issuing for, aid the guardian ost”; the donee is thereby empowcred to carry on the suit. Tliough his sister be living, a unium may give awny all hi§ property to a stranger, : **
