VYA V ASTHA-ID AIRPAN A. (;S 7 Moorsheilabad Court of Appeal, December 31st, 1816. Maen. H. L. Vol. II. Cha. 1 l, Case 7 р. 297. Q. A deceased IIinslit was survived by his adopted son, who sold his adopting father’s landed estate to a stranger. The purchaser is now digging a tank in the land, and the adopting father's brothers claim the right of pre-emption, and want to purchase the property sold. In this case, will the sale by the adopted son become null and void, and are the claimauts of preemption entitled to the estate 2 R. The sale of a person’s own share of property, whether consisting of movables or immovables, is according to law valid and binding, and it cannot be avoided by the seller's uncle's sons claiming the right of pre-emption. Authoritics:—“If they severally give or sell their own (undivided) shares, they do what they please with their property of all sorts; for, surely, they have dominion over their own.” Zillah Burdwan, December 3rd, 1819. Adwita Datta, persus. Krishnamohan Datta and oth- 娜 ers. Maen. II. L. Vol. II. Cha. 1 1. Case 8. p. 29S. Q. Is property held jointly by several individuals subject to be disposed of for the satisfaction of a decree passed against one of the proprietors? R. Whatever be the legal share of the person against whom the decree had been passed, that alone can be sold, and the sale to that extent only is legal.” Zillah Jung/eme/au/s, June28th, 18 19. Maen. II. I,. Vol. II. Cha. l l, Case :3, pp. 29:3, :!!) 1. REMARKS ON VARIOUS KINDS OF CONTRACTs. As a contract made by an outcast or degraded is void, so also A縣 the contracts made by those who have quitted the order of a householder, or is otherwise civilly deadf. - - - - as רה • * * * -: ** - A married woman has absolute dominion over the gifts of her affectionate kindred : she has no power of alienation by gift, &c. over the iminovables bestowed om her by her husband; the property earned by mechanical arts, or which is received through affection from others but the kindreil, is always subject to the husband's dominion; the rest is pronounced to be the woman's property: the husband however has power to use or consume such Strīdham as well as that of any other description in a case of distress.; Although a text declares “wealth common the married pair; (3 Dig. 88.) yet it is ~ * רא - a general rule that the husband alone has power to make contracts of such property, covero רא ... it a - s - - - g - ---...}< . s * exclusively * {}\\" ture incapacitating a woman from all contracts in respect of property not ext lusively her own,
- The answer to this question of course presumes that tiu- ghtುಣ್ಣ account of which the judginent was given, had been contracted for the sole and exclusive benefit of the individual proprietor, and not on behalf of the family at large. Ibid. Tr
+ spe ante, pp. ] I. & 660. Maem. H. I,. Vol. I. p. 121. Vashishta. C'pleb. l)ig. Vol. I II. p. 327. # Coleb. Da. bhar. pp. 75, 76. “ However if the husband have no means of subsistence, without using his wife's separate Opಳ್ಲy in a famine or other distress, he may take it in such circumstances, but not in any other case. 1bid. pp.70, 77. - v - mos ri, * * - on the authority of Colebrooke's Treatise on Obl. and Cont. (Book 4. ch. VI. §§ 611) Sir William Macnaghten has laid it down that the wife is subject to her husband's control, even in regard to her separate and peculiar property ( Maen. II. L. Vol. I. p. 122. ) This is not however observed in practice. There is no right of preemption arcor to the law of Bengal. Joint property is answerable for a debt to the extent of the debtor's share only.
