________________
APPENDIX B.
127
purposes.” Thus open as a Jaina tidor, governed by Hindu Larr, the testatrix could dispose of the property as she did. But her alienation finds further support in the fact that her will tas made on 19-9-1913 and the opening ceremony of the Boarding house took place publicly before 500 Jainas or more, on 26-2-1914, about 6 months after. The plaintiff, Somchandsa, Thos there, he did not object to the gift or ceremony then. He stated to the Court as follows:
"I did not protest before those who had assembled on the occasion. I cannot explain why I did not protest then."
His own words are :
"मुहुर्त के बखत जात वालों के सामने मैंने बाई के धरम करने के बाबत कोई तकरार करी नहीं. तकरार
क्यों वही करी नहीं इसका जवाब मैं नहीं दे सकता." This silence of his is significant, and implios consent. At least, it implies that species of consent which is designated acquiesconce. And their Lordships of the Privy Council say (Loc-cit): “It may be taken as established that an alionation by her, which would not otherwise be legitimate, may become so if made with the consent of hor husband's kindred." A sort of consent is proved bere. The character of legal necessity, as a charitable purpose, is indisputable and undisputed. The Hindu Lav itself would sanction a disposition like this. But, in view of my findings on the Law and Usage governing the case, the ancestral character of this part of the property makes no difference to the widow's rights of alienation.
One word in conclusion may be relevant. The Jaina Low books, on which reliance is based in this judgment, are the . accepted authorities on their Lat by leading Jainas vide the depositions of Rai Bahadur Danavira Seth Hukumchand, President of the Bharatavarsya Digambara Jaina Sabha, Rai
