________________
126
APPENDIX B.
(defendants' witness No. 11, Ex. 80), says: The site of the Kar chana is worth Rs. 300, the well about Rs.75, the wall about Rs. 75 and the Karchana Re. 40 or 50. In re-examination he raised the value of the site to Rs. 400. Defendants' vitness No. 12, Bhikasa (Ex. 81), says: "Before the partition, Pyarchand had a separate private business of his own in which he made money." I think Mangilal is slightly exaggerating the value of the well. I find that the site of the Karchana is proved to be worth Rs. 300, the well worth Rs. 50 and the Karchana itself Rs 45, and that these additions are not proved to have been made by Pyarchand with ancestral funds. With the exception of these additions, the residential house and the shop are ancestral property.
The rest of the property in dispute has been neither alleged nor proved to be ancestral. It is the self-acquired property of the testatris's husband, to which, as a childless Jaina widow, she is absolutely entitled (Sea Sheosingh Rai v. Dahho, I. L. R. 1 Allababad, page 688).
So practically the whole claim of the plaintiff is reduced to a contention, as to whether Bhagabai, the deceased Jaina childless widove, could make a valid testamentary disposition of these two items of property which are mainly ancestral. By the mill (Ex. 0) this property is directed to be sold and the sale-proceeds to be invested in various charitable purposes, c. g., to support & Jaina Saraswati Bhavan at Arrah, and founding a Jaina Boarding House for students, in memory of her husband. If the testatrix were governed by pare Hiuda Lav, the following principles laid down in Collector of Hauslipatam vs. Cavaly Venkata, 8 M. I. A., at p. 551, by their Lordships of the Privy Council, "for religions or charitable purposes, or those which are supposed to conduce to the spiritgal welfare of her husband, she has a larger power of disposition than that
possesses for purely worldly
