' VYAVASTEHA*.DAR.PANA Il 1 pandits have, almost unanimously, been opposed to the new doctrine; and in conformity with their wydvasthās the courts of justice have declared gifts, &c. inade by widows (unauthorised by the Shāstra) to be invalid. A very few pandits have given their assent to thc contrary doctrine ; but they have not been in any degrce followed. Further, J 1ʼmuʻtayaʼhana and the others, by laying down : “If unable to subsist otherwise, she is authorised to mortgage the property ; or, if still unable, she may also sell it : for, the same reason is equally applicable. . In like manner, even a gift or other alienation is permitted for performance of acts beneficial to the husband in the next word In the disposal of property by gift or otherwise, she is subject to the control of her husband's family, after his decease and in default of sons,” designates the causes for which, and persons with whose permission, she may alienc her husband's property. And then by laying down : “ Let not women on any account make waste of their husband's property. By “waste here is intended expenditure not useful or beneficial to the (late) owner of the property,’” they prohibit the disposal of the husband's property for any other purpose whatever. The author of Piva dabhangarnaea basing his agreement on the texts of Mahabha rata and Karva zana, thus concludes: “Whence it fully appears, that her disposal of if at pleasure, otherwise than by the simple use of it, or by donation for the benefit of her lord, is invalid.” (see V. D. P. 63). It is surely therefore beyond the ingenuity of the modern lawyers to controvert a doctrine so conclusively laid down. The ownership or absolute power of Hindu women, (in the inherited property,) is denied not only by the natives learned in the Hindu law, but also by those foreigners who have studied that law and written treatises thereon. Sir William Macnaghten, in his opinion contained in the paper delivered by his father Sir Francis Macnaghten, a judge of the Supreme Court, to the chief justice of that Court, has declared the gift or other alienation made by a woman (of the property she inlierited) to be void ab initio, on the principle of the same being made rvithout on nership. This opinion has been quoted in full at pages 85 and 87 of this book. A similar doctrine of Ja ganna ma has been well combatted by Colebrooke. See East's judgment in the case of Kāshī Nāth Basāk and another versus Hara Sundari Dási and Kamalmani Däsi, quoted in this book. Elberling, in his Treatise on Inheritance, lias drawn up a very good summary of the texts which widow's succession, thus :—“Her sex as well as to destruction without benefit to the deceased. To protect these different interests the law provides : 1st. That the widow shall only have the use of the property ; 2ndly. that her husband's kindred shall be her guardians ; and 3rdly. that the next of kin to the husband shall take his property after her death. The enjoyment of the property is given her upon two conditions : I.—that she remains chaste ; and 2. —that she does not make wasté D Generally, she cannot make gifts, or sell or mortgage the property, because after her leath tle property is to go to the next heir of her husband ; but when a sale or mortgage becomes necessary for any indispensable duty, religious or secular, or for her maintenance, it is valid, because duties must be performed. and she has a right to her maintenance from the property; and whenever gifts are made. Miche property is sold or mortgaged, for the spiritual behefit of her husband, it is valid, because the heir takes the wealth for that purpose, and not for his own benefit. As the spiritual benefit of the deceased and his ancestors is promoted not only.by the funeral oblations nsole by her, but also by the rites performed by his relatives in which he becomes a partaker, she is directed to make presents to the respect the her worldly inexperience exposes the property paternal uncles and other relatives of the deceased in proportion to her wealth for the sake of his funeral rites. The payment of his debts is a moral as well as a legal duty; and the marriage of an unmarried daughter is a moral duty; which after his death, devolves upon his wife ; whatever is done necessarily for these purposcs is consequently valid. The validity of a gift, a mortgage, or a sale, must therefore
