1856. BODHRAO HUNMONT V. lands described in this appeal cannot be claimed, and ought not to be admitted without injury to the property." The decree of the Political Agent was NURSING RAO. accordingly reversed, and the Court directed that the management should continue in the hands of one party, the accounts being open to all. From this decree the present appeal was brought, and, as the Respondents did not appear, was heard ex-parte. Mr. Rolt, Q. C., and Mr. Ayrton, in support of the appeal, Contended, that by the usage of the Southern Mahratta Country, and in conformity with the Hindoo law, the villages, though granted in Enam, were, in common with the other movable and immovable property of the deceased, Hunmont Rao, divisible among his heirs, and that the Appellant was entitled to one-sixth share upon a partition, and they submitted that the decision of the Governor in Council was influenced by a consideration relating to the Revenue, which was quite irrelevant to the question between the parties. The Right Hon. T. PEMBERTON LEIGH: There appears no reason why the Enam villages in question should not be governed by the general principles of the Hindoo law respecting partition of the father's estate among his heirs. The terms of the sunud are absolute. There is nothing peculiar in the case; it is an ordinary partition suit, which is an every day's occurrence in India, and the division must be according to the Hindoo law. The mode of collecting 1856. BODHRAO HUNMONT บ. the revenue has nothing to do with the question. We, therefore, must reverse the decree of the Governor in Council of Bombay, and consequently, affirm the decree of the Political Agent of the Southern Mah- NURSING Rao, ratta Country, of the 6th of October, 1852, with costs, as well here as of the appeal to the Governor in Council of Bombay. July, 1856. THIS appeal was brought from a decree on the 14th & 15th Equity side of the Supreme Court at Calcutta, in a suit instituted by the Appellant against the Respondents, dismissing the Bill with costs. Bill, quia timet, by re versioner, against the daughter of an intestate Hindoo in * Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, the Right Hon. Sir John Dodson, and the Right Hon. Sir William personalty, Maule. possession of dismissed. A Court of Equity will not interfere, unless it is shown that there is danger from the mode in which the tenant for life in possession is dealing with the property. The mere fact of the tenant for life keeping in hand for about three months part of the corpus for the alleged purpose of an eligible investment does not amount to waste, nor is in derogation of the rights of those entitled in reversion. The title of a Hindoo widow to her husband's property, though a restrictive one, is not in the nature of a trust. Whether by the Hindoo law current in Bengal the interest of a daughter in the estate of her deceased father, is of the same nature as that of a widow. Quære. VOL. VI. c 2 1856. The facts out of which the appeal arose were as HURRYDOSS follow: 2. UPPOORNAH DOSSEE. DUTT Heeraloll Mullick, a Hindoo merchant and Banker, SREEMUTTY died in the year 1819, seised and possessed of considerable real and personal estate in the Presidency of Bengal, leaving a widow, his heiress and legal personal representative, and four daughters, his only children, him surviving. The widow entered into possession of his real and personal estate, and died on the 30th of April, 1850. At the time of her death, three only of the daughters survived her, one having died in her lifetime without issue. Of the three daughters who survived, one, Rungunmoney Dossee, was a childless widow. Another, Joymoney Dossee, was the mother of the Appellant, and the infant Respondent, Singheechurn Dutt; and the third the Respondent, Sreemutty Uppoornah Dossee, the wife of Lall Mohun Roy, by whom she had had two female children, deceased, one of whom, however, Fulcoomary Dossee, left a son her surviving. Soon after the death of the widow of Heeraloll Mullick, some litigation ensued between her three surviving daughters with respect to the right of succession to the property of Heeraloll Mullick, which resulted, by compromise and arrangement (subject to a small money payment to Rungunmoney Dossee) in the equal division of the property between Joymoney Dossee and the Respondent, as the only daughters of Heeraloll Mullick having issue or capable of having issue at the death of his widow. The share of the property to which the Respondent succeeded consisted, inter alia, of a sum of Rs. 55,466. 10a. and 8p., at that time invested in the promissory notes of 1825 and 1826, called Com DUTT v. UPPOORNAH DOSSEE. On 1856. pany's paper, bearing interest at £5 per cent. the 23rd of April, 1853, the Government of the East HURRYDOSS India Company issued a notification of their intention to pay off the whole of their promissory notes of SREEMUTTY 1825 and 1826, on the 25th of July then next, giving parties who were holders of those promissory noties the option of taking either the par value of such promissory notes to be paid in liquidation, or the nominal equivolent at par in a loan opened in 1842 and 1843, bearing interest at the rate of £4 per cent. only. The Respondent did not at the time approve of the transfer of the £5 per cent. promissory notes of 1825 and 1826 into the £4 per cent. notes of 1842 and 1843; and, on the 25th of July, 1853, she received in cash from the Government of the East India Company, in discharge of the share of the property of Heeraloll Mullick so invested in the promissory notes of the year 1825 and 1826, the sum of Rs. 55,466. 10a. and 8p., of which sum, however, she shortly afterwards invested the sum of Rs. 39,340 in the purchase in her own name of Company's paper in the loan of 1842 and 1843, bearing interest at the rate of £4 per cent.; and, at the date of the filing of the Bill, the residue of the sum of Rs. 55,466 10a. and 8p., remained in the hands of the Respondent uninvested, ready for an investment when an advantageous opportunity should in her judgment offer. The Bill was filed by the Appellant on the 15th of August, 1853, against the Respondent, Sreemutty. Uppoornah Dossee, and Singheechurn Dutt, an infant, the other Respondent, as Defendants, in the Supreme Court at Calcutta, stating at great length the facts above set forth, and alleging his presumptive 1856. HURRYDOSS D JTT υ. UPPOORNAH title, as grandson of Heeraloll Mullick to the share of the Respondent in the whole of the sum of Rs. 55,466. 10a. and 8p., and charging that the SREEMUTTY Respondent intended to misappropriate the greater DOSSEE. portion of the estate of Heeraloll Mullick to which she had so succeeded, and that it was in danger of being entirely lost; and the Bill further charged that by the Hindoo law and usage a daughter succeeding to the estate of her father, had no greater interest in the same than a Hindoo widow, and that she was only entitled to the usufruct and could not alter or vary the securities in the Company's paper, and praying a declaration by the Court that the Respondent, by the acceptance of cash from the Government of the East India Company, in discharge of the promissory notes of 1825 and 1826, instead of having invested the same in the new £4 per cent. loan of the Government in the purchase of Company's paper, had committed waste, and for a decree that all sums received by the Respondent in respect of her share of the estate of Heeraloll Mullick might be paid into Court, and invested in the promissory notes of the Government of the East India Company. The Bill also prayed for an injunction restraining the Respondent from in any way converting into money any of the Company's paper in her possession, power, or control, belonging to the estate of Heeraloll Mullick. The Respondent by her answer, stated that she had already invested the sum of Rs. 39,340, part of the sum of Rs. 55,466 10a. and 8p., in the promissory notes of 1842 and 1843 of the Government of the East India Company, which she purchased at a discount of 3 to 5 annas per cent., and she denied that she had misappropriated, or that she intended to mis |