VYAVASTHA-DARPANA. deelares.” Consequently, where wine:things are (declared) inalienable, it is true of eight and if tenor eleven thing" be so, the same is affirmed of nine or eight. Coleb. I)ig. Vol. II. p, 110. Although it is said by Daksha that Striodhan is inalienable even in the time of distress, yet aecording to the texts of the other sages it has been established that the husband is competent to take his wife's Stridhan and to make a sale or the like of the same in the time of distress. See the Chapter treating of Stridhan. The lawyers of Bengal hold that, of things inalienable, the nlienation of some of thenı iş invalid, and that of the rest is valid. That is to say, gifts unfit by reason of the want of proprietory right, are necessarily null and void ; but that gifts unfit, because they are prohibited by general rules, may be valid, though the alienation thereof is immoral or moral according to special circumstances.” They are as follows:– 366 The alienation of deposits for delivery or use, bailments in the form of nya sa, pledges, things borrowed for use, and without a legal cause the alienation of joint property exceeding one's own share, and of Stridhan without distress, are invalid. Because of the want of proprietory right. I. . MANu:—“A contract made by a person intoxicated, or insane, or grievously disordered or whqlly dependent, by an infant, or a decrepit old man, or by a person without authority, is utterly null.” II. JA’anyavalkya :—“A contract made by a person intoxicated, or insane, or grievously disordered, or disabled, by an infant, or a man agitated by fear or the like, or by a person without authority, is utterly null.* Coleb. I)ig. Vol. II. p. 193. з67 тье gratuitous gift of a wife and son without (their) opposition, and the gratuitous alienation of the whole of one's own share in the joint property, and of his sole estate if he have issue alive, are valid but immoral.
- Mr. Colebrooke'says: “Lawyers of Bengal hold, that an unfit gift, (adeya.) to which class this of undivided property belongs, is immoral, an I even punishable, but not void, nor voidable. (See Str. H. L. vol.II, p. 420). There appears, however, exceptions to this rule. It has been shown that alienation by a man, of the property in which he has no proprietory right, -such as deposits, &c. which, are comprehended in the class of gifts unfit, is neeessarily void: this has been maintained by the learned gentleman himself. (See Str. H. L. Vol.II, p. 421) while on the other hand the alienation of one's sole ို့မို့ီ or his share in the joint estate; for and of his wife's Sodhan in distress, is held to be both moral and valid. ' - - - - - * * * *
Rcmark Vyavasthá Authority Vyavastha^
