History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.114.2

v4.c63.t2.114.2

But here the movable property was not *inherited* by her and as it was a bequest by will it became her strīdhana according to Nār. (q. by V. M. on p. 155). Besides, this was a case from Bombay Island and was governed by the law of V. Mayūkha. In some early cases in Bombay it had been held that a widow in Western India under the Mitākṣarā had absolute power over the movable property inherited by her from her husband. In *Gadadhar v. Chandrabhagabai* 17 Bom. 690 (F. B.) it was held that under the law of the Mitākṣarā a widow has no power to bequeath moveable property inherited by her from her husband and that to that extent the decision in *Damodar v. Purmanandas* must be treated as of no authority if it be interpreted to have decided the point in that way. In *Sha Chamanlal v. Doshi Ganesh* 28 Bom. 453 it was decided that even under the Mayūkha a widow inheriting movable property from her husband has no power to dispose of it by will. Lastly in *Pandharinath v. Govind* 32 Bom. 59 it was held, after an elaborate examination of authorities, that a widow is not under the Mitākṣarā competent to make a gift of the movables inherited by her from her husband and it was said (on p. 75) that possibly with the spread of education amongst, and the general emancipation of, their women Hindus may be led to call in aid the relief of Legislature. In cases arising under the Mayūkha a widow may dispose of movable property inherited by her from her husband by gift *inter vivos* but not by will.