পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৭৮১

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

\' Y A VASTH A^. I) A RPA N A. 658) of Potohis/ha and many other sages, and in presence of the citizens at large, although Bharata and his other sons were faultless; but afterwards, excluding Rotonia and the rest, he gave his kingdom to Bharata, as a boon to Koikei. Coleb. Dig. Vol. II. pp. 118, 119. Q. Can a person, having a son, a daughter, and a wife, sell his whole ancestral landed cstate to a stranger ? R. If a father, having a son aud other heirs, sell his entire patrimonial immovable pro. perty without their consent, or without extreme necessity, such as to render the sale needssary for the purpose of the family support, the sale is void and illegal ; but under such necessity the aet is allowable. This opinion is eonform able to the lica da chiutu“mani, J'ira daratna kara, J'ira - da chandrar. and other authorities. 4 m //, orifies :---- Katya yana : —” A wife or a son, or the whole of a man's estate, shall not be given away or sold without the assent of the persons interested ; he must keep them himself; int in extreme neecssity, he may give or sell them irish their assen/: otherwise he must attempt no such thing : this has been settled in codes of law. Ioxcept his whole estate and his dwelling-house, what, remains aster the food and clothing of his family, a man may give away, whatever it be, rhether sired or in rable ; otherwise it may not be given.” If the sons and the family eannot be supported without selling time whole real estate, or if the father, reserving such portion as may suslice for the maintenance of the family, sell the entire patrimonial landed estate, the sale is good and legal. I)araabha ya :-“I3ut is the family cannot be supported without selling the whole immovable and other property, even the whole may be sold, or otherwise disposed of.” Zillah Yuddea. May 12th, 1817. Maen. 11. L. vol. II. Ch. I l . Case 22 p. 31:. و به سده See also Maen. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 8. Cases 4, 9, and 41; aud Cli ll. (lases 9, 9, and 21. ...tnte, pp. 67, 73, 615, 67 and 651. 1. Bishwa Nath Datta persus Durga Prasad Italy and Shil ('handra Italy. S. C. 4th July I s 15. E ist's Notes, No. 34. .4nte, pp. 75—79. I. Raum Chandra Sarma versus Gangá Gobinda Banarjyá 1 . February 1826. S. D. A. IR. Vol. IV. p. 1 17. Anfe, p. 91—93. I. In the case of Bír Indra Náráyan Choudhuri and another eersus Satyabhámá Debyá and another, it was held that by the Hindu law, as current in Bengal, the gift by a widow of the property derived from her late husband to her daughter (being the next in suc cession) and her daughter's husband is valid. 6th of August 1835. S. D. A. R. Vol. 6. p. 36. II. In the ease of Ja'dumani Debi versus Saroda prosanna Mukariya and others, it was held by the Supreme Court that a conveyance for good consideration by a Ilindu fernale of her share in the joint family estate, inherited by her from her son, with the consent and in favour of the next heir then living, is a disposition permitted by Hindu law. 21st of November 1856. Boulnois, Vol. I. No. 2. pp. 120–136. Sale of a man's entire property allowable under what circumst:unces. ( 'otses bearing on the Vyavast.ha' No. 37 l. Cases bearing on the Vyavastha' No. 372.