VYAVASTHA'-IDARPANA. 439 to her separate share of the same description of property". 140 The mother who gets a share upon partition gets it for life only : with respect to dominion over the property, she stands upon the same footing with the widow who succeeds to her husband's rights.t یه I.shwar Chandra Karfarma: and another v. Goðinda Chandra Karfarma“ and others. In this case, it was declared by the decree, that the will of the testator Gokul Chandra Karfarmá was wholly inoperative, except as to a disposition therein contained, in favour of Chand, Nirmal Chand, and Kanai Chand, the sons of Gokul Chandra by the defendant Rasmani, his first wife, together with the defendants Doyál Chand and Sharat Chand, (Sharat Chand being then dead) two sons of Gokul Chandra by the defendant Radhamani, his second wife, together also with the complainants Ishwar Chandra and Surat,(Sörat being thon dead) two sons of Gokul Chandra by the complainant Narayani', his third wife, as the seven sons who survived Gokul Chandra, became entitled to his real and personal estate, of which he was seised or possessed at the time of his death; and that the said seven sons were so entitled in equal parts or shares. The decree then declares, that the defendant Ramani, widow and heir of Sharat Chand, is entitled "absolutely to his share of the personal estates ; and to his share of the real estate for her life: that the Šomplainant Narayani, as the mother and heir of Surat, is in the same manner cotitled to his share: that Rassmani, mother of Gobinda Chand,Nirmal Chand’ and Kanai Chand, is entitled absolutely to one fourth of their three seven parts of the personalestate—and for her life to one fourth of their three seven parts of the real estates;-and that Radha mani,the mother of Doyal Chand and Sharat Chand, is in the same manner entitled to one third of their two seven parts of the estate. -
- If brothers of an undivided family, shall possess immovable as well as movable property, and if one brother shall take his share of the movable property to his own separate use, continuing to possess the immovable property joint and undivided, with his brothers; this will give the mother a right to her separate share of the movable, but not of the immovable property. Cons. H. L. p. 46.
. ' * Šee Vyavasthās Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, & 41, and commentaries and cases in illustration there of:-Ante pp. 55–103. ..I believe it may now be laid down as the law, that mothers who take a share upon partition, take an estate for life only,–and with respect to dominion over the property, stand upon the same footing with widows who succeed to their husbands’ right.—It has been said that what is taken by a mother upon partition, is more in the nature of a gift than that which is taken by widow on the death of her husband. If all the sons agreed to divide it might indbed be said to be in the nature of a gift, because they would all have concurred in the act by which their mother became entitled to a share of the estate—yet if there be ten sons, any one of them may enforce partition; and although the other nine continue living in an undivided state, and although the tenth separated himself from them against their will, his separation alone will give the mother a right in severalty, to one eleventh part of the estate. In such a case, what she takes can hardly be said to be in the nature of a gift—certainly it is not a gift from her sons; nine of them out of ten being '@esirous of, withholding from her, that which one enables her to take by compulsion from the resto-but whatevér'the reason may be, the law is conclusive upon the subject. She has a *獻 on partition being made, although the greater number of her sons may 體。 been unwilling to divide. The Supreme Court has not hitherto made any distinction between the interest taken by a mother upon partition, and that taken by a widow upon the death of her husband. Cons. H. L. pp. 43,44. - - # The extent of the right of a woman, so succeeding, in the personal estate is the same as that in the real estate, the Hindu law making no difference between the two sorts of property. See Ante. p. 101. Vyawasthá Cawse bearing on the Vyavasthas Nos. o 140 & 128 . - - عبر جمے. Gourmani Dasi, the step mother of the testator. It was then declared that the defendants Gobinda s & 14,
