LlX Page. The heir of Krishna Mohan Thalour (Tagore) versus Barbu Gopi Mohan Thakur and others. Cons. II. L. p. 840- ... - - - - - -- - Jago Mohan Ray versus Sri'matir Nimu Dasi'. Clarke's Notes of decided Cases. pp. 101– Rájendra Mallik versus Boistob Da's Mallik; and Boistob Das Mallik versus Rajendra . Mallik. Cons. H. L. p. 861—869. ... * * * - - - 595 ... - - - - - - - - - - - - به سمه Raím Narrafyan Datta and otherseereus Satbansi” and others. S. D. A. R. Vol. III. p. 377. 597 Tarini“ Charan versus Musst. Da si Da si“, S. D. A. R. Vol. III. p. 397. ... 597 Ram Dularl Sarkar and Choitanya Charan Set &ersus Srismati Sona Devi and others. Cons. H. L. pp. 3:31–385 - - - - 597 Dev Nath Sa'ndya’l and others versus Patrick Maitland and Henry Doze. Cons. H. L. p. 376. 590 See also the decisions passed regarding -- - - 593 597 the will of Raja Naba Krishna. Cons. H. L. p. 3905... ... ... ... ... ... 595 The will of Surja Kumar Tha kur, Cons. H. L. pp. 360, 361. - - - - - - ... 597 The will of Raghu Natha Pasl. Cous. H. L., pp. 369, 370, ... - - - - - - - - - ... 597 The will of Ra"m IIari Bishwa's, Cons. H. L. pp. 370, 371. ... - - - - 597 3ᎼᏮ 357 然汤8 359 According to the law of Bengal, a gift of the entire property, movable and immovable, to a married daughter is legal, even though a wife and a maiden daughter are in existence.— The whole etsate may be given away, though there is a sister and sister's son. The sister has no right to inheritance, but her son will inherit in desault of heirs down to the brother's grandson.—A plaintiff may make a gift of the property he is suing for, and the guardian of the donee is thereby empowered to carry on the suit.—Though his sister be living, a man may give away all his property to a stranger.--According to the law of Bengal, a father may give all his self-acquired landed property to one of his sons.—A widow in Bengal may with the recorded permission of her husband, allienate immovable self-acquired property, although his brother be living.—A man may give his whole property to a daughter to the exclusion of his wife and another daughter-property may be given to a brother's daughter's son to the exclusion of a sister's son; though, accordifig to the law of inheritance, the latter would exclude the former.—The gift of a patcrinal estate is valid without the consent of sister's sons.—A person having a son may make a gift of his maternal grandfather's landed property, which had been usurpel, on condition of the donee's recovering it.—A man may give his entire property to the husband of one of the daughters of, his deceased son as a joutaka, or nuptial present, to the czclusion of his son's widow and other daughters. Macn. H. L. Wol. II. pp. 227—264 ... ... 607–617 The proprictor of an estate has power to determine the allotments of his heirs to take effect after his death. - - - S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S C C C S C ``'s " ... 617 2XTENT OF A CO-PARCENNER'S POWER IN UNDIVIDED PROPERTY. If one or some of the parceners dispose of by gift or other transfer his or their share or shares in joint property, the disposition is good and valid. a a - - - - * - - ... 621 1. Bhava'ni Prasad Goh versus Musst. Tataomani. S. D. A. R. Vol. III. p. 138. ... ... 625 II Ram Kanasi Ray and others versus Banga Chandra Banariya. Ibid. p. 17. ... ... 627 The gift of joint property to the extent of the donor's share is valid in Bengal.—The gift by a co-parcener of her share of the joint estate is valid according to the law of Bengal.--According to the law of Bengal unseparated co-heirs may sell their own portions of an ancestral estate.-- According to the law of Bengal, the sale by one parcener of his own undefined share of an estate i$ good and valid.—Maen. H. L. Vol. II. pp. 212, 220, 291, 813. - - - - - - ... 623–625 While unseparated parceners are minors and incapable of giving their consent to an alienation, even one person, who is capable, may conclude a sale and the like of the joint property (including others' shares,) if a calamity affecting the whole family require it, or the support of the family render it necessary, or indispensable dutics, such as the obsequies of the father and the like, make it unavoidable. * - - s v - ... 627 But where co-parceners are not incapacitated by minority and the like to give consent, and are not absent, there their consent to an alienation of the joint property, though made for any of the allowable causes as above, is necessary for the validity of the transaction. ... - - - - - - - s & g s g g = e * * * s = * s - - e - 4 ... 627 Precedents 73 yg n yy ?? n yy 22 73 Vyawastha
- ,
34 Precedents Vyavastha
