Jaina Law Bhadrabahu Samhita

Author(s): J L Jaini
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown

Page 87

APPENDIX B.
71
as next reversioner. Therefore, I find that the defendants do make them over to the plaintiff.
As to the safe worth Rs. 25, the defendants do not admit that they are in possesson of it. But there is some evidence (See plaintiff's witness 3, Mangilal, Exhibit 25) that the safe is with them. The defendants do not rebut this; and I therefore hold that the defendants are not entitled to retain possession of it, but must make it over to the plaintiff.
As to the cattle and cloth, there is no evidence that they are in the possession of the defendants, and I must exonerate the defendants from any liability with regard to them.
As to the utensils and wooden box, the defendants allege that they are not in their possession, but that they were given in charity to the Siddhawar Koot Temple by the deceased Bhagabai in her life-time. The plaintiff does not prove that the defendants hold these goods, and I cannot saddle them with any liability with regard to them.
This disposes of the Schedule of the plaintiff filed with the plaint. My finding in brief is this.
All the property which is proved to be in the possession of the defendants under the will, is to remain with them, in view of my finding on the 2nd issue; whereas all the property which is not disposed by the will, but which is found to be in the possession of the defendants, viz., the gold bands and the safe, must be made over to the plaintiff.
Finding No. 2:-The most important and the only point seriously disputed in the case is as to the validity of the will. This is a will made by a widow, and disposes of the self-acquired and ancestral property of her deceased husband. The deceased lady was a Jaina by persuasion and a Porwad by caste. Her husband died childless. The question is: Can a Jaina childless widow of the Porwad sect make a valid will disposing of practically the whole of her husband's estate?