VYAVASTHA?.DARPANA. 645 Aillah Chittagony, July 30th, 1813. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 11. Case 11. p. 308. Magan Dáss, rersus Madanmohan and others. Mnen. It has been held by Messrs Colebrooke and Stewart, Judges of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, that, according to the law as current in Mithila’,” a verbal mortgage of immovable property for a period of ten years is valid, provided such property remain in the hands of the mortgagee. Sham Singh versus Musst. Umráoti“, 28th July 1813. S. D. A. Rep. vol. II. p. 74. According to the law as current in Mithila’, a verbal gift of immovable property is invalid, where the donee has never been in the possession of property.” Ibid. A verbal gift by a Ilindu, who was upwards of eighteen years of age, made the day before his death, he being at the time in full possession of his senses, is held to be valid. Gossiin Chánd Kabirá versus Musst. Krishnamani and another. 8th July 1836. S. D. A. Rep. vol. VI. p. 77. SECTION I.--ON UNFIT GIFTS. (That is on gifts and other transfers of property inalienable.) Inalienable things enumerated by VRIHASPATI, KATYA YANA, NA’RADA, and DAksha, are as follows:– VRIHaspati —“The prohibition of giving away is declared to be eight fold: a man shall not give joint property, nor his son, nor his wife, nor a pledge, nor all his wealth, nor a deposit, nor a thing borrowed for use, nor what he has promised to another.” 數 KATYAYANA :—“A wife, or a son, or the whole of a man's estate, shall not be given away or sold without the assent of the persons interested (a); he must kcep them himself; but, in extreme necessity, he may give or sell them; otherwise, he must attempt to do no such thing : this has been settled in codes of law.t” () “Without the assent of the persons interested,”—that is, of the son, wife, kinsmen, and go forth. Coleb. Dig. vol. II. p. 106. - NATADA :—“What is bailed for delivery, what is lent for use, a pledge, joint property, a deposit, a son, a wife, and the whole estate of a man who has issue living, the sages have declared inalienable even by a man oppressed with grievous calamities, and (of course) what has been promised to another.” Coleb. Dig. vol. II. p. 97. the first sale should be avoided by the mortgage, from its having been made previously to the sale. The meaning of the text, however, is, that where a person mortgages his property for a valuable consideration to one person, and mortgages the same property to another, the first ဖ္ရစ္သဖ္ရင္ဆိုႏိုင္ရ shall hold good; but in a case where a man mortgages his property, and subsequently makes a sale of the same property, the latest contract will have superior force, on the satifaction of the debt for which the property was mortgaged: in other words, that a prior pledge shall avoid a subsequent pledge, not that a prior pledge shall avoid a subsequent gift or subsequent sale. - •
- In the matter of verbal gift, &c. there is no difference between the Hindu law current in Mithilar and that in Bengal.
† In this text of KATxa rana the gift or sale of a son or wife, without the assent of the parties interested, and without extreme necessity, is forbidden : it is not said that the gift or sale is void. Coleb. Dig. vol. II. p. 105: - - - Citse bearing on the Vyavasthá No. 360. ase bearing on the Wyavasthá No. 361.
