1V rent-free tenure. In regard to the assertion before made by the latter, “that he held it in virtue of a deed of gift, from the elder widow, granting it exclusively to his father,” it appears to be false, and he admits himself that he does not, nor ever did, possess such a deed, shifting it off to another assertion apparently equally false “that it was a verbal gift ;” for it appears. he was not in the Purgama at the time of her death. But admitting that he possessed such a deed well authenticated, I submit, whether the doner had the right of making a gift of property assigned to her for her life only, and which, conse. quently on her death, reverted to the assignees who were the heirs in general of Rajballab, through the managing Mail. I may also observe that had it been her own independent property, such a gift would be contrary to the Hindu Law which makes in default of daughters, the childless widows her heirs, and in default of these, all her sons inherit her properties in equal shares, nor is any gift contrary to this law valid. In respect, however, to the property in question, this law is not applicable for the reasons above stated, the assignment having been made for her life only. Mor had the Maib the power of making any disposal of it in perpetuity to deprive any particular heir for ever of his right in it. I should further think that the rendering of it Lakheraj originally was improper and unauthorised, under the consideration that it before formed a part of the Malguzari lands assessed and consequently responsible for the public revenue, for although every Zemindar may be admitted and invariably does, when the Zemindary affords him a profit, set apart lands for each separate branch of his private expense, I believe, none were vested with the power of releasing them from this responsibility; a power which might be carried to an extent to deprive the Government vesting it of the means
