VYAWA8THA”-DARPANA. 4铲9 · Rē&ká Ciaran Ray, (Defendast,) Appellano, Versus Kruise CAағqп .* JRay and Guru Charan Ray, Respondents. ... The defendant appealed to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlat, insisting, chiefly, 1st, that as the estate was recovered to the family by his exertions, he was entitled to a larger portion of it than the respondents; 2nd, that the widow of Rámdulál (who had come forward, with a claim under section 18, Regulation III of 1798) had no right to more than a maintenance; and that if she ever had any such right, she, as the appellant could prove by witnesses, had relinquished it. In passing judgment on the case, the "Court remarked that the claim of the appellant to hold a larger share of the family estate than his brothers, on the ground of his having undertaken the trouble and expence of recovering it from the usurpation of Santosh Rāy (by suit in which judgment was obtained in 1778) could not now be supported, for that were it founded on justice, it would have been brought forward by him when the cause, determined in 17 78, was depending; as it would have entitled him, on the principle now: insisted on, to a larger portion of the whole Zemindaree than the other claimants; whereas by that decree on which the rights of both parties in this case were grounded, the Žemindaree was divided into six equal portions. With respect to the right of the widow, the Court put a question to their pandits, by whose answer, as well as by a reference to the Digest of Hindu Law, it appeared, that she was entitled to the whole estate of her deceased husband; and the Court considered that the assertion of the appellant, that the widow had verbally relinquished her right, was not entitled to any weight, inasmuch as the admission of oral testimony in cases of this nature would open a door to much fraud and injustice. The Sudder Dewanny Adawlut (present P. Speke) therefore affirmed the zillah decree, further directing that the widow should be put into possession of her husband's fourth share of the portion of Kushal Ráy". 25th February 1801. S. D. A. vol. I. pp. 83, 34. Kishort mani Dasi, widow of Gadidkur Sen, (plaintiff, ) appellant, versus Sri kanta Sen and Parbati Duosi, (Dyfendants,) Respondents. I. The zillah judge, Mr. R. Torrens, gave judgment to the following effect.—It is clear that the plaintiff's husband and the defendants formed a joint undivided family and there is no doubt that the property in dispute was purchased at public sale in the name of Srikanta Sen. The question to be cleared up is whether the purchase was made with joint funds or with money belonging to the plaintiff's husband or to Srikanta Sen, the recorded purchaser. The evidence goes to the proof, that the money paid for the purchase belonged to Srikanta Sen, under such circumstances he is exclusively entitled to the property under the precedent of Subans Lál versus IIarbans Lál and another; and of Pratap Bahadur Singh versus Tilokdhari Singh, at pages 91 and 187, vol I. Sudder Dewanny Adawlut Reports. Further, the sale took place on 28th Phalgun 1231, corresponding with 10th March 1825 B. S., and this suit was instituted on the 22nd Bysack 1244, corresponding with the 3rd May 1887. As Srikanta
- The rejection of the appeliant's claim in this case to a remuneration, which would consist in the allotment of a superior portion for his exertions in the recovery of his patrimony, was founded
on special circumstances in this case, and did not proceed on the legal inadmissibility of that claim, the Hindu law sanctioning the allotment for an additional portion, in such cases, with one quarter to the heir who retrieves the common property. Daybhaga, Ch. Vs Sect. II. p. 29. Coleb. Note on tfie above deciesion. - Case bearing. on the Vyavastbä No. 163. Cases bearing on the Wyavarthá No. | 73.
