VYAVASTHA”-DARPANA. 883 Again; donation and sale are forbidden, to show the immorality of the act, not to annul the gift or alienation; and that is evident on the exposition of Ji'Mustavahana and the rest. Coleb. Dig. vol. III. pp. 86, 37. II. Tf any father, infringing the law, absolutely give away the whole or part of the mmovable property acquired by himself, or inherited from his own father, that gift is valid, provided he be not impelled by lust, (or) wrath, (nor act with) guile, or the liké”However, he commits the moral offence of violating the law. Mcre on this subject will be subsequently delivered with the opinion of Jrmutavahana and the rest. Ibid. p. 37. III. If the wlgé 擊 ovable property be given away, the consequent distress of the family, through want of "នែ៎ stence, is the sole cause of moral guilt: the gift or alienation is not annulled ; for it is made by an owner, who is neither insane nor otherwise incapacitated. The two "texts (of Vyasa) cited by JI’Mu'tav Ash ANA are also intended to show the immorality of the act, not to annul the sale or other alienation. Ibid. p. 39. IV. The gift of wealth inherited from a grandfather not being included under the title of Void gifts, the text of JA’ony Avalky A (‘the father is master of gems,’ &c.) is considered as a moral prohibition of *h gifts. I6id. yol. II. p. 118. V. No one has expressly said, that the immovable patrimony, given without the assent of sons and the rest, is not a valid gift. Ibid. p. 159. VI. The gift of a man’s whole estate is valid, for it is made by the owner: but the donor “ommits a moral offence, because he observes not the prohibition. The Smritisatra. Ibid. p. 118. Five cases have been cited by Sir William Macnaghten in the first chapter of his book on the Hindu law, in the first, second, and 驚 which the doctrine in question was held and inculcated. The decisions in those cases are the leading ones on the subject in question. They are therefore briefly noticed here with the able remarks thereon by the learned gentleman aforesaid and Sir Thomas Strange. The first case (on record) is that of Rasik Lal Datta and Hari Lal Datta, executors of the will of Madan Mohan Datta versus Choitanya Charan Datta. This case was ,iam Maenaghteu from the Elements of thc Hiudu Law by Sir Thomas Strange الذنبضة x '+', •o - - o of four soond possessed of property of both descriptions, ancestral and self-suired, 'ಕಿಲ್ಲಿ provided for his eldest son by appointment, and advanced to the three younger ones in hiš life-tinis 觀 مطة case was decided about the year 1789; that the testator, a Hindu, the fathë:: - Precidents
