व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

$\left.{l}S. IV. 8 2-3
M. p. 77 ll. 15-20\right]$ $\quad\quad\quad\quadWIDOW AS HEIR\quad\quad\quad\quad$ 151
monthly, six-monthly and yearly śrāddhas to be performed$^1$. She* should
honour with oblations and $p\bar{u}rta$ (charitable gifts) her husband's paternal
uncle, preceptor, daughter's son, sister's son, maternal uncle, and also old
persons, guests and women (either born in the husband's family or depen-
dent on him).
$Kupyam$ means 'tin, lead and the like' (base metals) As to what
Bṛhaspati (p 378 vv 53-54) says
Whatever property of various kinds such as pledges and the like that
belongs to a person after partition, his wife, on his death, shall get it with
the exception of immoveables The wife, even if virtuous and even if a
share were allotted (i e even if her husband was allotted a share on a
partition), is not entitled to immoveable property
that, according to Smṛticandrikā, refers to a wife having no daughter (even),
since a wife who has a daughter takes even immoveable property, while,
according to Mādhava, that text is meant to forbid the sale &c of immove-
able property (by a widow) without the consent of (her husband's) kinsmen$^2$
1 The $\bar{a}bdika$ śrāddha is the one performed on the anniversary of the day of death
The monthly śrāddhas are twelve, performed every month on the day of death and the
sıx monthly s'rāddhas are two Aparārka, Dāyabhāga and some others read 'ṣānmāsā-
dıkam' and explain that a widow could not perform the pārvaṇa s'rāddha and so that
text specifies the monthly and sıx-monthly śrāddhas The word $\bar{a}di$ refers to the
s'rāddha on the 11 th day after death, the sapiṇḍīkaraṇa &c This verse is referred to in
$Lallubhā\bar{i}$ v. $Mankoreba\bar{i}$ 2 Bom. 388 at p 420 and in $Sundarj\bar{i}$ v $Dah\bar{i}ba\bar{i}$ 29 Bom.
316 at p 319
2. This view of Mādhava is more reasonable and has been universally accepted by the
British Indian Courts, which hold that a widow cannot alienate her husband's immoveable
property except for legal necessity or without the consent of those who are her husband's
presumptive heirs after her death As regards movables a widow succeeding as heir has
larger powers of disposition during her lifetime than over immoveable property (vide
$Damodar$ v $Purmanandas$ 7 Bom 155 at p 163) but she cannot dispose of them by will
($Sha$ $Chimanlal$ v $Dosh\bar{i}$ 28 Bom 453), $Gadadhar$ $Bhat$ v $Chandrabhagaba\bar{i}$ 17
Bom 690 (F B), where on p 710 reference is made to the passages of the Mayūkha about
the wife In $Gurunath$ v $Krishnaj\bar{i}$ 4 Bom 462 it was held that even if the husband was
separate and died sonless, his widow in the absence of special circumstances would have no
power to make an absolute alienation of the husband's estate The consent of the reversionary
heirs may validate an alienation by a Hindu widow, since it offers presumptive evidence of
the justifiability of the alienation, but in the earlier cases like $Varjivan$ v $Ghelj\bar{i}$ 5 Bom. 563
at p 571 the consent of a female reversionary heir like the daughter was thought to be insu-
fficient However in later cases it has been held that it does not matter whether the consenting
reversioner is a male or a female, vide $Akkava$ v $Sayadkhan$ 51 Bom 475 F B (=29 Bom
L R 386) In the case of a gift by a widow consented to by a reversioner
it has been held that it would be binding on the reversioner on the principle
of election to hold the alienation good Vide $Basappa$ v $Fak\bar{i}rappa$ 46 Bom 292,
$Rangasami$ v. $Nachiappa$ 45 I A 72 The text of Kātyāyana 'when the husband is
dead' is quoted in $Narasimha$ v $Venkatadri$ 8 Mad 290 at p 292 and it was held that
restriction on the widow's power applies to both movables and immovables This text is
*P. 138 (text)