vyAwASTHA.DARPANA. 7 7 8 Gosaeen chund Kobraj, son of Beidnath Kobraj, Appellant, versus Musst. Kishenmunee and Musst. Jyemunee, Respondents. The plaint was to the following effect:-Munohur Kobraj held possession of his estate to Cuse the day of his death, in which he was succeeded by his son Oodenarain Kobraj, the grandfather Ý § of the plaintiffs, Oodenarain had two sons, viz. Gunganarain Kobraj, father of the plaintiff 432 to Kishenmunee, and Debnarain Kobraj, father of the other plaintiff Jyemunee. Gunganarain Kobraj died in 1196 B. E. leaving his daughter Kishenmunee. The other brother Debnarain then held joint possession with Kishenmunee to the time of his death, which occurred in 1214 B. E. Debnarain was succeeded by his son Bhyrub Kobraj, who continued to hold joint possession with Kishenmunee. Bhyrub died in 1215, but, the day before his death, made a verbal gift of the whole of the property to the plaintiffs (with the exception of 20 beeghas of land which he gave to his gooroo or spiritual guide) to be held by them in equal portions. The plaintiffs now sue to recover the property. *. The defendant Beidmath Kobraj resisted the claim. He alleged that, after the death of the son and grandson of Munohur Kobraj, the property came in sole succession of Rhyrub-the name of Munohur Kobraj continuing without change on record in the collector's books. Bhy. rub died childless, and the defendant, who is Munohur's daughter's son, became entitled to the property under the Hindoo law of inheritance. Kisheumunee, being barren, and Jyemunee, a childless widow, could not succeed to ancestral property. The case was first brought before Mr. II. Shakespear, who put the following questions to the pundit of the Court. . st. Is the verbal gilt by Bhyrub Kobra, who was at the time eighteen years and a half old, made one day before his death, and being at the time in possession of his senses, valid or not? 2nd. In the event of such gift being illegal, who are entitled, and in what shares, to the estate of Bhyrub” 3rd Let it is admitted that Kishenmunee was entitled to her father's property, under the probability at the time of his death of her thereafter having a son; Kishenmunee and her husband have both died since the present suit commenced, was it competent to Kishenmunee to transfer by gift to Musst. Jyemunee, her cousin, the property inherited by her from her father If it was not competent to her to do so, who are the heirs of Musst. Kishenmunee ? To the above questions, the Pundit replied: The gift by Bhyrub, under the circumstances stated, was valid. The authorities are:— The Wirádárnavanelu, Wivādaśīangárnava, and other tracts —“What has been given under the agitations of fear, anger, lust, grief, or sickness, must be considered as ungiven.” “To the third question, the reply is that, if Kishenmunee, because of the probability of her giving birth to a son, inherited her father's property, it was competent to her to make a trausfer of such property to another, with the view of her paying her father's debts, or for any other necessary purpose, but not otherwise. If, however, the property, as appears from some of the papers of the Zillah record of this case, was acquired by Kishenmunee as a gift from Bhyrub Kobraj, it is her soudiyika or gift from affectionate kindred; it is thus her stridhan or
