mother sharing upon partition, shall be entitled to more than a life interest in movable property. The power of expenditure may be specially given in particular cases.

I am not as I have already said, aware of the Court ever having made any distinction between the interest of a mother who took upon partition, and that of a widow, who takes upon the death of her husband.

The following, is I believe, the first instance in which the interest taken by either in real and personal (movable and immovable) property, was distinguished; but the ground or principle upon which a larger interest was given in the one, than in the other, species of estate, I never yet have been able to ascertain.

The decree of which I now speak, was pronounced in January, 1813. The cause was between Issurchunder Corformah and Narainee Dossee, complainants-and Govindchund Corformah, Nemulchund Corformah, Conoychund Corformah, Dialchund Corformah, Rasmonee Dossee, Radamonee Dossee, and Ramonee Dossee, defendants.

A cross bill was filed, to which three of the defendants to the original bill, viz. Dialchund, Radamonee, and Rumonee, together with the two complainants in the original bill, were made defendants. All the other defendants to the original bill, were complainants in the cross bill-but the parties were the same.

It was declared by the decree, that the Will of the Testator Goculchunder Corformah in the pleadings mentioned, was well proved, but that it was wholly inoperative, except as to a disposition therein contained, in favor of Gourmonee Dossee, the step mother of the Testator.

It was then declared that the defendants Gobindchund, Nemulchund,

and Conoychund, the sons of Goculchunder by the defendant Rasmonee, his first wife, together with the defendants Dialchund and Surrutchund, (Surrutchund being then dead) two sons of Goculchunder by the defendant Radamonee, his second wife, together also with the complainants Issurchunder and Sooraut, (Sooraut being then dead) two sons of Goculchunder by the complainant Narainee, his third wife, as the seven sons who survived Goculchunder, became entitled to his real and personal estate, of which he was seized or possessed at the time of his death; and that the said seven sons were so entitled in equal parts or shares.

The decree then declares that the defendant Ramonee, widow and heir of Surrutchund, is entitled absolutely to his share of the personal estate; and to his share of the real estate for her life: that the complainant Narainee as the mother and heir of Sooraut, is in the same manner entitled to his share that Rasmonee, mother of Govindchund, Nimulchund, and Conoychund, is entitled absolutely to one-fourth of their three seven parts of the personal estate-and for her life to one-fourth of their three seven parts of the real estate;-and that Radamonee, the mother of Dialchund, and Surrutchund, is in the same manner entitled to one-third of their two seven' parts of the estate.

It will be observed that Rasmonee, the mother of three, and Radamonee, the mother of two, sons of Goculchunder, came in upon partition made, the first by her three sons, the second by one son, and the widow of her deceased son; and also that Ramonee, the widow of Surrutchund, and Narainee, the mother of Sooraut, came in as heirs, one of her husband, and the other of her son; and that the mothers and widows so taking were all declared to have the same interest in the estates which they severally took, i. e. an absolute interest in the personal, and an estate for life in the real property.

That part of the decree which declared the rights of the mothers, proceeded of course, upon the partition made by their sons. Radamonee was

the mother of Dialchund and Surrutchund. Surrutchund had died, and his widow Ramonee was declared entitled to his share-and then, on a partition between Dialchund and Ramonee, Radamonee, the mother of Dialchund and Surrutchund was clearly entitled to a share.

So far this decree is consistent with all the decisions; but there is one point in which it differs from the decree that was pronounced in December, 1823, in the cause of Sree Mootee Jeeomonee Dossee et. al. v. Attaram Ghose et. al. in which Corrunnamoyee Dossee was declared entitled, as heir to her grandson, to his share-and also, as parent, to a share upon partition; although, as heir of her grandson, she had been joint-owner of the property divided.

In the case I am now reporting, the double claim of Narainee Dossee may have been overlooked. It does not appear to have been urged, or to have been brought at all to the notice of the Court.

The

Narainee was mother of Issurchunder and Sooraut. Sooraut had died, and Narainee was declared as his heir, to be entitled to his share. parties were all severally declared to be entitled to their respective shares, and the decree furnishes as good evidence of a partition between Issurchunder and Narainee, as between any of the other parties.

Thus then, if the decree of December, 1823, was right, Narainee was entitled to more than she received. As representing Sooraut, she was entitled to, and received, one-seventh part of Goculchunder's estate. If Sooraut had lived, he and Issurchunder would have been entitled to two-sevenths, and upon their separation, Narainee would have been entitled to one-third of these two-sevenths.

this principle.

Rasmonee and Radamonee had each shared upon

According to the law as it was declared in the case of Jeeomonee et. al. v. Attaram et. al. which will be found reported in another part of this book, Narainee ought to have taken the share of Sooraut as his heir; and she ought then upon partition to have shared as the mother of Issurchunder and Sooraut. In the case of Jeeomonee v. Attaram, the Pundits were clearly of opinion that Corrunnamoyee was entitled to take as HEIR of her grandson, and when in that capacity she came to a partition with her son, and a son's widow, she was entitled as parent to one-fourth of the estate; she, and the son, and the deceased son's widow, each took one-third; and upon partition she took one-fourth of the whole. The correctness of the opinions which the Pundits gave on this occasion, seemed to have been admitted; and from subsequent enquiry, I am satisfied that they were consistent with law; according to that principle Narainee ought to have had eight shares out of twelve. First, upon partition, she ought to have had six parts, or one half; then as mother she was entitled to one-third, or four parts of the whole, her own contributing to make up the four. This would have taken two parts from Issurchunder, which would have increased her own six to eight and left him four. Instead of half, she ought to have had two-thirds of two-sevenths of Goculchunder's estate.

It is difficult to arrange decided cases, which involve several distinct points of law, so as to apply each part, exclusively, to the subject under consideration.

The proceedings which arose out of disputes, in Muddunmohun Bysaack's family, will exhibit the effect given by the Supreme Court to a Hindoo's will, and the right of a widow as heir to her husband. Yet I conceive it to be so connected with the subject of partition, as to render its introduction in this place, not improper; for it will show how a partition may be brought about at the instance of a widow, claiming in right of her husband; and how a mother (upon partition made) may be barred of her share, by the operation of her husband's will.

Parts of this case have been noticed before; but, as taken altogether, it appears calculated to throw considerable light upon several points of Hindoo law; and, as it is demonstrative of the vexatious spirit, which any disagree. ment in a family of Hindoos, is sure to engender and to perpetuate, I have given the proceedings in a more detailed and connected form.

The first bill was filed on the 14th of October, 1808, by Govindchund Bysaack, against Cosinot'h Bysaack, Ramanot'h Bysaack and Bishonoth Bysaack. This proceeding seems to have become necessary on the part of Govindchund, in consequence of the conduct of Cosinoth, who, on his coming of age, determined to interrupt Govindchund in the execution of his trust. The complainant and the defendants were first cousins. The complainant had been appointed executor by his uncle, who was father of the defendants, and from all that appears, there is no reason to impute dishonesty, or mismanagement to the executor.

Govindchund succeeded in getting a decree for a partition of the estate, which had been joint between him and the defendants. A family dispute had commenced, and was therefore, if the feelings of the parties could prevail, to be interminable.

It happened that in the partition between Govindchund and his cousins, a proportion of the property was left undivided. There was thus " a bone of contention" remaining between the two branches of this family. Govindchund died in 1810. But he left sons, and between them, and the sons of Muddunmohun (the defendants to Govindchund's bill, and their representatives ;) and among themselves, we have had bills, and cross bills and pleadings in every variety of litigation, all founded upon claims to this undivided part of the family estate. The contest continues, the spirit of the combatants is I believe unabated, and the duration of this strife will, I presume, if possible, be proportioned to the funds of the family.