VYAVASTHA”-DARPANA 127 في تعو The Court, after ineffectual endeavours to adjust matters equitably between the parties, made an order for the payment to her of the interest accumulated, which they thought not more than adequate to her just allowance for her rank and fortune (supposing she were not also entitled of right to the actual possession of the principal also, which it was thought as well to retain during the appeal); and also gave liberty to her counsel to apply for the possession of the principal to a judge in chambers after the decree was signed. But ultimately the principal sum was retained on account of the appeal, and certain costs were paid out of it. S. C. East's Notes, No. CXXIV. Morley's Digest, vol. II. pp. 198–220. JUDGMENTAt a Meeting of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council: 24th June 1826. - Kâshí Náth Basák & Ramá Náth Basák... ... ... ... ... Appellants, Hara Sundarí Dásí and Camal Mani Dásí ... ... ... ... ... ... Respondents. I.ORI) GIFFORD This is an appeal against a decree of the Supreme Coug of Judicature in Bengal. Bishwa Nāth Basík, who was one of the three sons of Madan Mohan Basāk, the appellants (Defendants) Kāshí Nāth Basāk and Ramā Nāth Basák being the two other sons, under the will of the father was cntitled to one third part of the movable and immovable property, of which he died seized. Bishwa Nāth died an infant under the age of sixteen, leaving a widow (Hara Sundari Dāsi) also an infant, but without any issue. After the husband's death, the suit was instituted by Udoy Chánd Basāk. the next friend of the widow, seeking to have the property belonging to the husband. This case came on to be heard in the Supreme "Court, in the month of December 1814, and they pronounced the following decree : “That Bishwa Nāth Basák being, at the time of his death, an infant under the age of sixteen years, could not by the Hindu law make a will, bequeathing his estate and property to the defendants after his death, and that the paper writing exhibited in this case on behalf of the defendants marked with the letter A, is not the will of the said Bishwa Nāth Basāk ;” and the Court did further declare, that the said Bishwa Nāth Basāk having died without leaving issue of his body, the complainant, as his widow, is by the Hindu law entitled to an interest for her life in the whole of his immovable or real estate, and to an absolute interest in the whole of his movable or personal cetate. A Bill of revivor was filed by the appellant, and errors were asigned (by them) in this deereed and in the decree of 8th April 1816. The suit came on again to be heard in the Supreme Court, and from the questions involved in this cause, at the hearing, the Pandits of the Court were called in and examined as to certain points arising out of the Hindu law ; and, after their examination, the Supreme Court, on the 11th August 1819, decreed “That the several decrees of the 5th December 1814, and 8th April 1816, should be rectified, and that the respondent Hara Sundari Dási should be declared entitled to the real and personal estate of her husband, to be possessed, used, and enj69ed by her, as a widow of a Hindu husband dyin without issue, in the manner prescribed by the Hindu law. 總麒 nج Upon this decree, an appeal was brought before His Majesty in Council, and fom the importance of the case, their Lordships have been desirous to obtain all the information they could procure in this country upon the subject. They have been recently favored with a very correct note of what took place in the Supreme Court at Bengal upon the discussion of the question, and with the judgment pronounced by the Chief Justice on the occasion. - With respect to the last supposed ground of error in this decree, which was assigned by the appellants, viz. that it was not ordered by either of the decrees, that Hara Sundari Dasi should reside with or under the care, protection, and guardianship of the appellants, who, as the surviving brothers of Bisliwa Nith Basāk, were alone entitled to have the care, protection, and guardianship of his widow; the Pandits appear to be unanimous in the opinion, “that a Hindu widow is not bound to live with her Case bearing on the vyavasthis Nos. l 4. 19, 20, 21. 38 &c.
