DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0266
cited by the learned author, that a father has power to-
alienate the whole of the ancestral landed estate, or is it only
applicable to the case when alienations are made? If the
former be asserted, how can the doctrines*" of Jimutavahana,
Sricrishna Terjaluncara, Raghunundana, Jugunnath Terca-
fiunthanana, and others, whose works are current in Bengal,
be reconciled ? But, on the other hand, if the latter
supposition be proved to be correct, how can it be inferred,
that, according to the Dayabhaga, the father has power to
alienate the ancestral real property, as said by the learned
author.
He, (the learned author,) exhibiting some ordinances
regarding marriage, taxation, partition, and so forth, has
made some hints on Sir F. W. Macnaghten's Considerations
of the Hindoo Law, for his adverting that " to make that
invalid which was considered immoral." Mr. Editor, if
according to the opinion of the learned author, it be
considered as a general rule, that whatsoever alienations
are made, they cannot be nullified, then should we not
without hesitation say, that a sale without ownership, (that
is, a sale by an individual who has no title to that which he
has disposed of,) is not invalid ? If it be argued that a father,
according to the doctrines of Jimutavahaita, has an indepen-
dent power over ancestral real property, and can dispose of
the whole of it at his free will, then what is to become of
this doctrine : "What is bailed for delivery, what is lent for
use, a pledge, joint property, a deposit, a son, wife, and the
* "The prohibition is not against donation, or other transfer
of a small part incompatible with the support of the family.
But, if the family cannot be supported without selling the whole
immoveable and other property, even the whole may be sold, or
otherwise disposed of." " If there be no land or other
permanent property, but only jewels or similar valuables, he is
not authorised to expend the whole." " And as appeal's from
the word ' whole' repeated in that text, the gift of all the
precious stones, pearls, and the like, inherited from the grand-
father, is not immoral, but a gift of the whole immoveable
property is an offence."
alienate the whole of the ancestral landed estate, or is it only
applicable to the case when alienations are made? If the
former be asserted, how can the doctrines*" of Jimutavahana,
Sricrishna Terjaluncara, Raghunundana, Jugunnath Terca-
fiunthanana, and others, whose works are current in Bengal,
be reconciled ? But, on the other hand, if the latter
supposition be proved to be correct, how can it be inferred,
that, according to the Dayabhaga, the father has power to
alienate the ancestral real property, as said by the learned
author.
He, (the learned author,) exhibiting some ordinances
regarding marriage, taxation, partition, and so forth, has
made some hints on Sir F. W. Macnaghten's Considerations
of the Hindoo Law, for his adverting that " to make that
invalid which was considered immoral." Mr. Editor, if
according to the opinion of the learned author, it be
considered as a general rule, that whatsoever alienations
are made, they cannot be nullified, then should we not
without hesitation say, that a sale without ownership, (that
is, a sale by an individual who has no title to that which he
has disposed of,) is not invalid ? If it be argued that a father,
according to the doctrines of Jimutavahaita, has an indepen-
dent power over ancestral real property, and can dispose of
the whole of it at his free will, then what is to become of
this doctrine : "What is bailed for delivery, what is lent for
use, a pledge, joint property, a deposit, a son, wife, and the
* "The prohibition is not against donation, or other transfer
of a small part incompatible with the support of the family.
But, if the family cannot be supported without selling the whole
immoveable and other property, even the whole may be sold, or
otherwise disposed of." " If there be no land or other
permanent property, but only jewels or similar valuables, he is
not authorised to expend the whole." " And as appeal's from
the word ' whole' repeated in that text, the gift of all the
precious stones, pearls, and the like, inherited from the grand-
father, is not immoral, but a gift of the whole immoveable
property is an offence."