vyAvASTHA-TARPANA 69 Q. A Shūdra died possessed of some landed property, leaving a widow, a daughter, and a daughter's son. A part of the property had been usurped by a stranger ; and the daughter's son of the proprictor, with the sanction of his grandmother, instituted a suit to recover possession of the portion usurped. In this case, will the property in question go to the daughter's son or not : Supposing the original proprietor's widow, notwithstanding she had a daughter, and daughter's son living, to have disposed of a portion of her husband's landed estate by sale, without their consent or knowledge. and not to have received the full value of the property from the purchaser ; in this case, is the sale to be considered valid and binding, or otherwise ? R. If a part of the deceased proprietor's immovable property have been forcibly seized by a stranger, and his (the proprietor's) daughter's son have instituted a suit to recover the property from the hands of the usurper, with the consent of the proprietor's widow, the daughter's son is entitled to the property in dispute, by reason of his being next heir to the deceased. Either a gift or sale, or any other alienation of the immovable property which had devolved on the widow, unless for the completion of her husband's exeguial rii, s, or the like necessary obscrgances, is illegal. Whatsoever sum may have been settled as the value of the property sold, if the whole amount had not been paid by the vendor, the sale must be held invalid. Authoritics. Vrihaspati :—“A possession by strangers for three generations gives, no dombt, an absolute title not a possession by kinsmen within the degree of Sapindas. The property of a house, arable land, a market, or other inimovables, which are possessed by a friend, or a near kinsman in the male or female line, who is not the proprietor, shall not be lost to the rightful owner, nor shall the husbands of daughters, nor learned priests, nor the king, nor his ministers, acquire a title even by a very long and juict possession.” - The text of Ma ha'bha rata in the chapter entitled Da nadharma, and of KATYAYA NA laid down in the Da'yabhaga and other works. See V. D. p. 55. - VRIn Aspati :—“What has been sold, at a low price, by a man inebriated or insane, or through fear, or by one not his own master, or by an idiot, shall be given back, or may be taken forcibly from the buyer.” City Dacca, February 3d, 1817. Maen. H. L. vol. II, Ch. 1 1. case 9. (pp. 298, 299, 800). Q. There were three brothers who held some landed property in coparcentry, one of whom died childless, leaving a widow, who succeeded to the share of her husband. Subsequently, the surviving brothers sold their entire estate, including the share to which the deceased is entitled, to a stranger. The widow applied to a court of justice for her husband's portion : a decree was passed in her favour, and she was put in possession of the property claimed. She then, notwithstanding that her husband's two brothers' sons and grandsons in the male line were alive, made a gift of the whole of her husband's property, which she recovered by litigation, to one of her husband's brother's grandsons.
- - In this case, has the gift validity or otherwise f
R. Under the circumstances above stated, the widow was incompetent to give away her husband's whole property to one of his brothers' grandsons, while there were his other nephews and their sons existing, and the gift must be considered illegal, as expressly declared by the following sages”. همایی Asy ANA : “Let her enjoy with moderation the property until her death. After her, lot the heirs take it.” ( See V. D. p. 55.) “Let the widow preserving unsuilied the bed of her lord, take his share ; but she may not seek independency while she lives, to give, pledge, or sell it.” KA TY “Even in this case, if a partition should have been made, the widow is not entitled to the immovable property." Macm. HI. L. Vól. II. Ch. 8. case 46 (Page 254). 娜 Q. 1. A “Hindoo Zemindar dies childless, leaving a widow ; who one day previous to her death, in full possession of her faculties, executed a will, or conditional deed of gift (duly signed and attested), of all the property, real and personal, with the profits accruing therefrom, to which she had succeeded on the death of her husband, together with the profits which had accrued therefrom, and all the property acquirld by herself, in favour of a stranger. In this case, what property will pass by such will, or conditional deed of gift f s 取
- There is nn omission in this place. After the use of the expression “the following sages,” the name of Kara’yana only is put before his text ; and it is not shown who else is or are meant by the plural term “Sages ;” nor is the nuthor of
the two following texts indicated, 彎 ]Ꭱ .ic by a widow without the onscint of the next heirs of a part of the property elev« ived on her from hér liiis.uu.nl is invalid, except uttdi r special circuuıstances. The fact of a widow's having recovered her husband's share by litigation, gives her uo additional Power v. er at.
