AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 380 wordsIt is conceded that Gangammal obtained the land in dispute as a gift from her father some forty years ago, and that she was in possession from
that time till her death three years ago. The plaintiffs are her son and grandson, and defendants are her brothers and brother''s sons. Both the
Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the land and not the defendants. The contention, on appeal, is that under Hindu law it must
be presumed that a gift to a female is only for her life, and reference is made to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram L.R. 2 IndAp 7 and Bhujanga
v. Ramayamma ILR 7 Mad. 387
It is no doubt remarked by the Lords of the Privy Council in Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram L.R. 2 IndAp 7 that it may be assumed that a
Hindu knows that, as a general rule at all events, women do pot take absolute estates of inheritance which they are enabled to alienate, and that in
construing the will of a Hindu it is not improper to take into consideration what are known to be the ordinary notions and wishes of Hindus with
respect to the devolution of property. That case was decided on the construction of the will. The above case was considered by the Calcutta High
Court in Mussamut Kollany Kooer v. Luchmee Pershad 24 W.R. 395 and it was held that women are not, by reason of their sex, debarred from
taking an absolute estate when such estate appears to have been intended by the testator. In Bhujanga v. Ramayamma ILR 7 Mad. 387 it was
held on construction of the document that the property was given as stridhanam. In the present case the deed of gift is not produced, nor is it
shown that Gangammal was a widow when her father gave the property to her. She has left sons surviving her. Under these circumstances there is
no foundation for the presumption that the donee''s sons were intended to be displaced by those of the donor.
Such is not the ordinary intention of a Hindu when he makes a gift to his daughter under coverture.
The presumption relied on by the appellant being inapplicable, we dismiss this appeal with costs.