VYAVASTHA’. DARPANA 6R5 Q. A woman made a gift of her property to her daughter and son-in-law ly a written instrument. In this case, is she (the donor) competent to revoke the gift, or otherwise? R. No person is competent to revoke a gift lawfully made, and to resume possession of the property disposed of by the gift. Zillah Chittagong, January 30th, 1816. Maen. H. L. Vol. II. Cha. S, Case 30, pp. 238. Q. A man dying, and leaving some Handed property, a son begotten by him on a concuhine got possession of that property, and died leaving no children. IIe was succeeded by a widow. Was she (the widow of the latter deceased person) competent to make a gift, sale, or other alienation of the property, while the daughter's son by another concubine of the original proprietor, exists? Is she should have made either of such dispositions, is it good and binding, or otherwise ’ R. It is not particularly mentioned to what class the original proprietor belonged. If he was a Shirdra, that is, of the fourth class, and the daughter whose son survives was begotten by him on a concubine, the widow of the son of his other coneubine may enjoy the whole estate, whether consisting of real or personal property, during her life-time, and she may also give or sell a small portion of it for the completion of her husband's funeral rites, or for his spiritual benefit, as well as for her own maintenance; but these circumstances excepted, she is incompetent to dispose of the property inherited from her husband, and the gift of such property made hy her must be considered void. - - R می * . - - tuthoritics –The Mahabha-rata, Chapter eńtitled thc Du madharma. See ante, p. 59. KA”ry A y ANA. anfe, p. 58. NA^wApA, anfe, p. 107. JA^t: Ny xvAi.KYA--“ Evem a soli, begotten by a Shw^lra on a female slavo, may take a share by the choice of the father; but is the father be dead, the brethren should make him partaker of lials a share.” By the term “a som begotten by a Shw dra on a female slave,” must be understool daughters, daughter's sons, and other heirs. This opinion is conformable to the Dayashirga, Dryasafira, sira-- . dachinsa-mani, J/i/a’s shara’, Mann, and other legal authorities.* City Daeca, May 1st, 18] ti. Maem. II. L. Vol. II. Cha. 8, (';ise 48, pp. 255--23S. - - - e - - Q: A.lauded estate was jointly held by two persons, and one of them being anxious to sell his own portion of the property, the other offered a proper price of it, but he nevertheless sold his interest to a stranger. Under such circumstances, is the sale valid and binding 2 IR. Supposing the landed property to have been held in joint temáicy by two persons, and when one of them negotiated a sale to the cytent of his own share, his co-parcener to have ottered him the same price as settled by the purchaser, in such case the property must be sold to the parcener, and if it should have been disposed of to a stranger, the sale must be set asidet.
- In the case of Brinda’ban Chandra Rāy orrsus Bishnu Chandra Ray, where the respondent claimed to retain possession of cirtain lands on the plea of gift from a I/indu widow by whom they had been taken on her husband's death, on a division among the heirs, the court of Sudder Dewanny Adaw hit held that the plea was not proved, and at all events the gist would have been invalid without the consent of the heirs. (S. 1). A. R. Vol. 1 V. p. 113.) And in another case (p. 117 of the same volume,) it was determined that the widow of a II indu, who died without children, had the power of making a gift of a portion of her late husband's property for his spiritual benefit ; but such not appearing to the court to have been the olject of the gift in the case in question, the claim of the donce was disallowed.
- According to the Hindu law, there is no right of pre-emption, either in the schools of Bengal Bernaes, or Mithila; but the two latter forbid the sale of undivided property. I have not been able to discover any work which consorms the doctrine laid down in the Mit'ka’-nirha’na Tantra as to pre-emption, and 1 entertain some doubts as to the accuracy of this opinion. It appears at best to be founded rather on the inability of a co-heir to sell his share of joint property than on the ground of viciuage; and in Bengal, as that inability does not exist, there could not, I imagine, be any legal claim of pre-emption. See case 8, p. 687.
itesumption of an unqualified gift unlawful. The son of a Shu'tra by a concubine or femałe slave is cntitled to inherit property, but his widow is incolnpetcnt to aliene to the prejudice of other heirs. Right of pro1:nmptiom reeogmised in joint property.
