AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. No. 207 of 1915. The first question argued before us in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are the reversionary of the last male owner of
the properties of one B. Perumallu, the son of the 2nd defendant who is the widow of one Naganna. We do not think that the matter admits of any
reasonable doubt.
[Their Lordships after considering the evidence agreed with the conclusion of the Lower Court that the plaintiffs were the reversionary.]
The next point that has been very strenuously argued before us is that the gift made to the 3rd defendant by the widow, the 2nd defendant, of
one-fourth of the family property is valid. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the gift cannot be supported. What the 2nd defendant did
was, she gave half the estate of her husband first of all to her daughter the 4th defendant and then one-fourth of the estate to the 3rd defendant and
the remainder to the 3rd defendant''s son the 5th defendant. That is to say, she took it upon herself to divide the entire property among her
daughters and the daughter''s son. That is not a sort of disposition by a widow which can be sustained under the Hindu Law, and we do not think
that any of the cases which have been cited lends support to a claim of this nature. In the case in Ramaswami Iyer v. Vengidusami Aiyar ILR
(1998) M. 113 the gift was made on the occasion of marriage. Here the finding of the Subordinate Judge is that it was not proved that there was,
as suggested, an oral gift at the time of the marriage supplemented by the execution of proper documents sometime afterwards. In the case in
Kudutamma V. Narasimhacharyulu (1907) 17 M.L.J. 528 the gift in favour of a daughter of the family was made by the manager. It was found
that it was a reasonable gift having regard to the circumstances of that case. The main circumstances as mentioned there were that the family
owned very large family properties and that apparently a very small portion of the property was given to the daughter. Similarly in Anivillah
Sundararamaya Vs. Cherla Seethamma and Others, what was given was only 8 acres of land belonging to a very wealthy family the possessions of
which consisted of more than about 200 acres of land. No doubt that gift was made some years after the marriage, but the circumstances of that
case were totally different from the circumstances of the present case. The next case which is relied upon is Churaman Sahu v. Gopi Sahu ILR
(1909) C 1. In that case, the gift appears to have been made on the occasion of the daughter''s grihapravesam ceremony, a ceremony connected
with marriage and it was especially on that ground that the validity of the gift was upheld. We do not think that any of these cases can support the
proposition that a widow is entitled to divide the entire property of her husband among her daughters and daughter''s children or that the fact that
portions of the estate are given away at different times can validate such a disposition. This appeal is dismissed with costs.
A.S. No. 213 of 1915. All that is stated in the plaint in the suit in which the appeal arises, is that the widow, the 2nd defendant, has caused
transfer of pattahs in the name of the 4th defendant with respect to a portion of the land in dispute in this suit. There is no allegation that there had
been an alienation by means of a conveyance and that alienation was to be set aside though as a matter of fact a deed of gift had been executed in
favour of the 4th defendant. Nor was there any issue raised as regards the validity of the deed in favour of the 4th defendant. The 6th issue refers
only to the transfer of pattahs. That being so, there is no reason to differ from the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge. Then as regards items
Nos. 20 to 22, the findings of the Subordinate Judge must be upheld. The appeal (No. 213 of 1915) will be dismissed with costs.