vyAVASTHA-DARPANA. 617 anna share of it with the consent of his wifíowhich sale was admitted as good and valid by the decisions of the zillah and 鑒 incial courts. In this case, has the widow of the son of the donor a right to sell any protičā’ of the remaining eight-anna share 2 R. It appears from the evidence woodduced in this case, that the landed proprietor in question separated bis portion of the estate from that of his co-parceners, and caused it to registered in his son's name; and that having brought the appellant from a distant place, he gave him in marriage to one of his three granddaughters, presenting him with his ‘entire state as a joutaka, or nuptial gift, while his own wife and his son's widow and two unmarried daughters were living; and that he died, leaving directions with the appellant to support his son's widow. Under these circumstances, the property which is specified in the deed of gift, according to law being the appellant's estate, the deceased son's *idow has no right over it, and cattāot sell it. It also appears that the deed of gift was attested by three witnesses; consequently the donoe's proprietory right to the estate specified in the deed being so cstablished, the son's widow has no right to it, and therefore her claim is inadmissible. Authorities — MANU :—“After the (death of) father and mother, the brethren, being assembled, must divide equally the paternal estate : for they have not power over it while their parents live.” Vishnu :—“When a father separates his own sons from himself, his will regulates the division of his own acquired wealth.” DEvalA:—“For sons have not ownership while the father is alive and free from defect.” “But wealth received on account of marriage is considered to be that which has becn gcepted with a wife.” z Dacca Court of Appeal, May, 1820. Jagannath Da’s versus Madan Mohan Ghose and others. " Maon. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 8, Case 60. pp. 262—264. - “But when the father, for the sake of obviating disputes among his sons, determines their respective allotments, continuing however the exercise of power over heು that is not partition : for his property still subsists, since there has been no relinquishment of it on his part. There fore the use of the term partition, in such an instance, is lax and indeterminate."* (Coleb. Da'. bha. p. 17). From this passage of SRI KRISHNA TAR KA LANKA RA it appears that 356 The proprietor of an estate has power to determine the allotments of his heirs to take effect after his death. • From this it is also inferred that SaskaIsIINA TAarهي مهنتهك BA has in a manner recognised the power of a proprietor to make a will, which in fact is a gift made in contemplation of death. A man may give his entire property to the husband of one of the daughters of his deceased son as a joutaka, or nuptial present, to the exclusion of his son's widow ånd other daughters. Wyavasthá
