VYA VASTA4.DAR.PANA 109 44. (k)“ In the disposal of property,” i. e. in gift or other alienation, she is subject Vyavasihá to the control of her husband's kin, after his decease, and in default of sons. Others expound the (above) precept of Nanada as signifying, that the (nearest kinsman in the) family of her husband has authority in the disposal of property, that is, in donation. She may give a present to that person on whom the kinsman of her husband bids her confer one; she may bestow that which he bids her give away. Viva dabhangarnava. See—Coleb. Dig, vol. III. p. 462. - The term “Ishnara " being used in the text of NATAda, a woman is pronounced subject to the control of (the nearest kinsman on) her husband's side, in respect of gift, which is an alienation. Modern lawyers do not concede to this opinion ; for the validity of a gift made by the owner should not be impugned while no special text pronounces it void. As for the declared subjection of women to the control (of the nearest kinsman,) when deprived of husband and son, it does not thence appear that the gift made by her is void ; for the implied object (of the text) is only to show sin in not subjecting herself to the control of (kinsman on) the husband's side. Viva dabhangornaea. See Coleb. Dig. vol. III. p. 464. 象 Against the opinion here given, it may suffice to say, that neither Raghunandana, nor any one of the other modern compilers and commentators, has expressed or confirmed the doctrine alluded to by the author of Viva dabhangarnara : on the contrary, all of them have pronounced opinions totally at variance with such a doctrine. The modern lawyers are said to have declared that gifts and alienations by a widow (not sanctioned by law), are considered valid the ground that a transfer made by an omner cannot be impugned; but the author of Viva dabhangiểrnara, after quoting the text of Wied dachinta mani, has pronounced all such alienations to be void on the ground of being made by one niho is not onner, nor competent to make such alienations : thus, -“It is said in the Wivádachintámani : “As women are declared by positive texts to be incapable of giving away, or otherwise aliening immovable property bestowed on them by their husbands ; so are they incapable of aliening the landed property of their lords.' It appears from this incapacity and dependance, that the donation is void, being made by a person who is not the owncr; nor competent to do so Accordingly a woman is pronounced subject to the control of the kinsman of her husband in rcspect of gifts, i. e. alienation, as is apparent from the term I'shnara, lord, in the text of NA RADA.” Thus the new doctrine broached by the said author is rebutted even by himself. Masu declares the alienation of property by one who is not the owner to be as not maddo e. altogether void ; and Nanada and KATYavana direct the judge to stay it as an invalid act, -thus: “A gift or sale as not made by one who is not the owner, must, by a settled rule, be considered, in judicial proceedings, made.” (Mawu. Ch. VIII. v. 199). “Let the judge declare void a sale, gift, or pledge unauthorised by the owner.” Nassada, and Karva Yana (See (Mita kshara and Pivādachintamani). The (modern) I find it in some parts of Viva dabhanga rmava, the original of Colebrook's Digest, and in all the editious of Da'yabhaga and Dayakramasangraha, especially the copy of Dayabhaga edited by the present, professor of the Himdu- law in the Government Sanscrit College, who, I know, has spared neither time nor pains to restore the text, and whose superior competency for the task can not but be acknowledged, but also because the first reading expresses what is generally held to be the true intent of the law. B. 2
