Case: Kamala Devi Vs. Bachu Lal Gupta


Decision:
1[ds]Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we do not think that we shall be justified in going behind the finding of the Courts below that the appellants had failed to prove by satisfactory evidence that Mst. Sumitra Devi made a verbal gift of the four houses in question at the time of the marriage of her daughter Kamala Devi and that such a gift was accepted by Nand Lal on behalf of his minor daughter-in-law. In view of this finding, the question as to whether the gift was again confirmed at the time of the Gowna ceremony does not really arise. There can be no confirmation of an act which did not itself takeis no consideration, nor any discussion, of the texts bearing on the question, and the learned Judge did not consider the alienation from the point of view that the marriage of the daughter was a religious duty and the promise to make a gift to the daughter as her marriage portion created a moral or religious obligation in fulfillment of which it was competent for the father to execute a deed of gift in favour of the daughter of a reasonable portion of theis no doubt that by reason of the expression "whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act" the section is retrospective in effect. The Explanation to the section shows that "property" includes immovable property acquired by a female Hindu at a partition or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is two-fold. He has contended that the four houses in question are now in the possession of Kamala Devi and under S. 14 Kamala Devi is a full owner of the houses; the plaintiffs-respondents cannot therefore get the declaration which they have asked for. Alternatively, he has contended that if Sumitra Devi is still in possession of the houses, she also becomes a full owner and in that event also the plaintiffs respondents are not entitled to the reliefs claimed. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on sub-section (2) of S. 14 which says that nothing in sub-s (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift, etc., where the terms of the instrument or decree, etc., prescribe a restricted estate in such property. It is argued that Sumitra Devi got a restricted estate by the partition decree and sub-s (1) has no application to that estate. It is further argued that Kamala Devi as done could not get a larger estate than what the donor had in the property, if the view of Hindu law, as contended for by learned counsel for the respondents, is accepted as correct; therefore, Kamala Devi is also not entitled to the benefit of(1) of S. 14.25. We do not think that it is necessary to decide this case on the rival contentions presented to us with regard to S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956. We have already held that under Hindu law Mst. Sumitra Devi could make a gift in favour of her daughter as marriage dowry, two years after the marriage, in fulfillment of the antenuptial promise made by her and that such a gift is binding on the reversioners.That being the position, it is unnecessary to decide in this case the true scope and effect of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act,v. Sitamma, ILR 35 Mad 628 (J)