The Principles of Hindu Law

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 Excerpt: ...case, the co-parceners are reduced to herself, and the estate centres in her. She can, therefore, do what the body of co-parceners can do, subject always to the condition that she acts fairly to the expectant heirs. The rights of these heirs impose, on persons dealing with the widow, the obligation of special circum 1 Oulnck Chunder Paul v. Ha-1 Chimnaji Govind v. Dinbir humed Rohim, IX. W. It., 3lfj. Dhondtv, L. L R XI. B. S., 320. spection, failing which they may find their securities against tlie estate to be of no avail after the widow's death. The moral obligation of the widow to pay Iter husband's debts out of the husband's estate could not be obliterated by the circumstance that the law of limitation barred or did not bar a suit against the widow for the recovery of the debts in question. She filled the ownership of the estate, and could deal with it for all purposes consistent with her duty of husbanding its substance honestly for her successors. This case was followed in Madras, where it was held,1 that although a managing member of a joint Hindu family cannot as such revive a barred debt as against his coparceners, it is competent to the widow of a deceased member of the family, who represents the inheritance for the time being and in whom it is a pious duty to pay her husband's debts, to bind the reversion by a mortgage executed to secure such debts though they were barred at the time of its execution. When therefore the managing members of an undivided Hindu family, after the death of the widow, sold family property for the purpose of discharging such a mortgage, it was held, that the sale was binding ou the co-parcenary. (5). Payment of debts incurred by flu-widow to preserve the estate, as payment of Revenue due, to Government.--A...