BROJESSUREE DOSSEE Vs. MOHAMED USHRUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point taken before us in special appeal is that the Subordinate Judge did not take into consideration the question whether or not the widow went to Gya to perform her husband's sradh, and whether there was a sufficient necessity according to Hindu law for her selling property to enable her to do so. The appellant also objected that the Subordinate Judge had given no opinion as to the "necessity" of the Gya sradh. I do not, I confess, see much probability of the special appellant gaining anything by a remand, but at the same time I think he has a right to ask it The Subordinate Judge has decided that there was no proof of Muddun Mohun's having left debts, nor that the marriage expenses of his daughter required the sacrifice of his landed property, but he has not found on the other alleged necessity, viz., the Gya sradh.

(2.) Now, according to Hindu ideas, the performance of a deceased husband's sradh at Gya would be a very proper and reasonable necessity, inasmuch as the soul of the deceased is supposed to be greatly benefited thereby. Such a pilgrimage would undoubtedly be a religious purpose supposed to conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband, which would give a widow a larger power of disposition than she would ordinarily have, The Collector of Masulipatam v/s. Cavaly Vencata Narainapah : 8 Moore's I.A., 529: but I do not understand that the sradh pilgrimage to Gya can be put any higher than a very necessary and meritorious performance. A widow ought, perhaps, to perform it, but she is not absolutely bound to do so; it is, I should say, one of those ceremonies for the due performance of which a widow might fairly and properly alienate a moderate portion of her late husband's estate, but that she would not be justified in disposing of the entire property for that object; Vyavashta Darpana, vol. I, 63.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge must decide therefore on the evidence whether the defendant has proved that there was any necessity for selling these three plots of land, for the purpose of providing funds for the Gya sradh, which would no doubt involve the question whether Muddun Mohun left other property, from the income of which the pilgrimage in question might have been performed without selling the landed estate. My own impression, after reading the Subordinate Judge's judgment, is that he found that there was such an income, but the wording is not I admit very clear.