The main legal point established was the widowed daughter-in-law's right to maintenance from the joint estate and the permissibility of making provisions for maintenance in a suit for partition.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition of joint property. The plaintiff and the first defendant are two brothers and this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff for division of the properties jointly held by then. Subsequently, the third defendnat, the widow of another brother of the plaintiff and the first defendant, who is now dead, was joined as a defendant. The husband of this lady died during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff and consequently never became entitled to the properties of his father. The lady claimed that provision might be made in the decree for her maintenance. The District Judge has given effect to this contention: and the only point in controversy in this appeal is, whether provision should be made for her maintenance in the' decree for partition. Three points have been raised before us; namely, first, that the added defendant has no right of maintenance as against the estate received by her b; other-in-law from their father; secondly, that if she had any such right, that has been extinguished by lapse of time; and thirdly, that if she has a subsisting right, it cannot be enforced in a suit for partition.

2. As regards the first question, reliance has been placed by the plaintiff-appellant upon the decision in Bai Parvati v. Tarwadi Dolatram 25 B. 263 : 2 Bom. L.R. 894. We are of opinion that the decision mentioned cannot be defended on principle. It is now well settled that a widowed daughter-in-law has no legal right to maintenance as against the self-acquired property of her father-in-law, if her husband died during the lifetime of her father-in-law. This was enunciated by a Full Bench of this Court in Khettur Monee Dossee v. Kasheenath Doss 2 B.L.R. A.C.J. 15 : 10 W.R. (F.B.) 89 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 659, and the position has since then been accepted without question, as will appear from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Meenakshi Animal v. Rama Aiyar 18 Ind. Cas. 54 : 37 M. 396 : 13 M.L.T. 97 : 24 M.L.J. 100 : (1913) M.W.N. 40. But although the obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law is only moral and not legal, when he has no ancestral assets in his hands, the position of the heir who takes his estate by inheritance is different. What was a moral obligation in respect of the father ripens into a legal obligation when the estate passes into the hands of his heirs. In support of this proposition it is sufficient to refer to the cases of Janki v. Nand Ram 11 A. 194 : A.W.M. (1889) 30 :13 Ind. Jur. 347 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 552 and Siddes-sury Dassec v. Janardan Sarkar (2). But it has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that this principle is not applicable when the father-in-law has made a testamentary disposition of his property or has during his lifetime made a gift of his property. This is supported by the decision in Bai Parvati v. Tarwadi Dolatram 25 B. 263 : 2 Bom. L.R. 894. But we are unable to accept the contention that the daughter-in-law is not entitled to maintenance out of the property in the hands of a donee or devisee. If the contention of the appellant were to prevail, it would be possible for the father-in-law to evade his m moral obligation an to protect his estate after his death from the claim of the daughter-in-law, which, acceding to well-established rules, at this stage ripens into a legal claim. It is on this principle that a contrary view has been m untamed in the cases of Yamunabai v. Manubai 23 B. 608 : 1 BL.R. 95 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 401, Rangammal v. Echammal 22 M. 305 : 9 M.L.J. 14 : 3 Iad. Dec. (N.S.) 817. These decisions were mentioned with approval in the cases of In the goods of Gobinda. Chandra 23 Ind. Cas. 539 : 17 C.W.N. 1141 and Indubala Dasee v. Panchumani Dasee 28 Ind. Cas. 578 : 21 C.L.J. 292 : 19 C.W.N. 1169. We hold accordingly that the plaintiff is not entitled to evade liability merely because he received the estate of his father not by inheritance but by way of gift during hi