vYAvAsrr AeroARPANA ఈ The question in this ease is, whether the 'sale to plaintiff was for any of the purposes authéorized by Hiadw law, and whether the proof of the appropriation to those purposes, adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to sustain the decree. The bill. of sale to the plaintiff sets forth that it was effected for certain purposes, which are such as are recognised as legitimate causes for alienation of ancestral property by the Hindu law. The ehief purpose is liquidation of debts of the late rājā Ram Krishna. There is no documentary evidence of the raja having been indebted at the time of his death ; but so long a time had elapsed - ti his death before this sale, i. e. eighteen years, that it is quite possible, as contended for by responsent’s pleaders, that the ra ní may have renewed har husbaud's bønds, and there i* oral evidence that this was the case to a certain extent ; and there are circumstances shown, from which a fair inference may be drawn that she was in great difficulties on account of these debts. The debts were paid, and the presumption is, that , they were paid from the funds raised by this sale. It would be unreasonable, in the opinion of the Court, to expect from the plaintiff better proof than he has given on this point. We find no distinct >verment on the other side, certainly no proof other than negative, that the debts were incurred by the ra ni herself, that she had been guilty of wilful extravagance, and none that she appropriated the money she received in a way other than that for which she ostensibly sold the disputed property. It is not necessary for us to decide whether such proof, if tendered, would have invalidated the sale. 打熟。 - We therefore are of opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the decree of the principal Sudder Ameen, restoring the plaintiff to the possession of that part of his purchase which had not been previously sold to Mr. Nicholai. We dismiss the appeal of Hurris Chnder, No. 82, with costs. We amend the principal Sudder Ameen's decree in case No. 83, charging costs rateably. 13th April 1852. S. D. A. Basbu Harish Chandra Rasy, (defendant,) appellant, versus Nanda La'i Datta, and after his death Gobinda Chandra Datta (plaintiff) respondent. And Rani Anna Púrna and another (defendants.) appellants, versus Gobinda Chandra Datta (plaintiff,) respondent. III. Rashi"Krishna Mani had been left, by the will of her husband Maha'raja" Bishwa Ray, sole possessor and manager of all his property, and invested with authority to adopt a son. This lady executed a conditional sale in order to prevent the foreclosure of a mortgage made by her husband. The Pandies of the Sudder Dewanny Adaylut declared that the conditional sale would be legal supposing a sufficient case of necessity to have been made out. The majority of the Court, admitting that, when the period fixed for foreclosure of the original mortgage drew nigh, there did exist a sufficient case of distress to justify recourse to the above measure, whereby the interest of the son about to be adopted by the widow would doubtless be best consulted: and although the measure had not the effect of saving the estate ultimately from alienation, yet it put off the evil day, and steps might have been taken in the interval to avert the loss altogether. For these and other reasons, the sale was hela valid, and the property sold Ха: decreed to the purchaser. Rani', Krishna Mani, appellant, versus Raja’Udwunta Singh and Raja Jasnaki Rasm Singh, respondents. 24th June 1823. S. D. R. Vol. III. p. 228. Iv. Sãoja Mani, widow of Bhoirab Chandra, executed a deed of relinquishment to Hem Chatid, acknowledging and confirming an alleged transfer by her husband to Hem Chānd in payment of his debt. Claim being preferred by Tára Mani, , mother of the deceased proprietor (Bhoirab Chandra) on behalf of herself and Ra'i Manj, daughter of the deceased, to possession of the estate during the lifetime of the widow, on the ground of the debt and transfer being folse. The provincial court reversed the sillah desree, and adjudgea possession of the lands slaimed to Musat. Taza' Mani, The Sudder Court admitted the appeal on consideration of the ing gy of the proceedings of the Provicial Court, and the erroneous adjudication. of possession to Tara: Mani, who obviously was not the legal heir os Bhoiras chandra; his wife and daughter surviving. Rái Mani was, on petition, admitted as joint respondent with Tára Mani. : - - -
