Case ID: 470

Judgment:
Appeal No. 158 of 1953. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 6	 1950	 of the Calcutta High Court in appeal from original decree No. 166 of 1944 arising out of the decree dated June 30	 1943	 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge	 Asansol	 in Title Suit No. 2 of 1942. Ramanugrah Prasad and Mohan Beharilal	 for the appellants. H. J. Umrigar and section P. Varma	 for respondents Nos. I and 2. 1957. January 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section K. DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta	 dated April 6	 1950	 by which the said High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated June 30	 1943	 in Title Suit No. 2 of 1942. The suit was instituted by the four sons of one Ram Kishori Lal Sao	 a resident of Asansol in Bengal	 who died in September 1927. The defendants were Sumitra Devi	 widow of the late Ram Kishori Lal	 (defendant No. 1) and Kamala Devi	 daughter of the late Ram Kishori Lal (defendant No. 2). The said defendants	 I and 2	 are the appellants before us. The suit was instituted for a declaration that a deed of gift dated March 10	 1940	 executed by Sumitra Devi in favour of her daughter Kamala Devi	 was void and inoperative beyond the lifetime of Sumitra Devi and was not binding on the reversion. The following genealogical table shows the relation inter se	 between the parties: 455 Ram Kishori Lal 3rd wife 4th wife 5th wife Sumitra Devi (Deft. 1) Kalicharan(Plff.3) Rambandhu BachuLal Heman Lal died during pen: (plff. 4) (Plff. 1)(Plff. 2) dency of the suit Mst. Ram Sakhi (Plff. 3 gha) Satyanarain HiralalGopal Lachmi Narain Kamala Devi (Plff.3 Ka) (Plff.3 Kha) (Plff 3 Ga) (died on I I 36) (Deft. 2) On his death	 Ram Kishori Lal had left extensive properties worth several lakhs	 including some houses in Asansol	 two businesses at Howrah and Asansol	 and large amounts of money deposited in Banks or invested in loans etc. sons for partition of the properties left by her husband. This suit was registered as Title Suit No. 664 of 1927 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on July 22	 1933	 and a final decree on June 29	 1936. This decree provided for payment of Rs. 10	000 as expenses for the marriage of the minor daughter Kamala	 in addition to a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50 per month to her until she was married. Lachmi Narain	 it should be noted	 died on January 1	 1936. By the final decree ' each of the sons obtained one sixth share of the estate of Ram Kishori Lal. By reason of the death of Lachmi Narain before the final decree	 Sumitra Devi got one third share of the estate	 one sixth in her capacity as widow and one sixth as the mother of her pre deceased son. The allotment in favour of Sumitra Devi consisted mostly of house properties	 and the four houses of her share with which we are concerned in this litigation were described in a schedule to the plaint and stood on Municipal Holding Nos. 116	 17	 26 and 27 of Circle 4 of the Asansol Municipality. The value of these four houses was found by the Commissioner at the time of partition to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 19	000 only. 59 456 The marriage of Kamala Devi was settled with one Bijoy Kumar Sao	 son of Nand Lal Sao	 a retired Deputy Postmaster	 Patna General Post Office. The case of the appellants was that the marriage was settled at Deoghar on Shivratri day in 1938 and the plaintiffs	 respondents before us	 had no concern with the negotiation ; it was alleged that the terms of the marriage settlement included a promise by Sumitra Devi of a gift of four houses at Asansol	 worth about Rs. 20	000 as marriage dowry for Kamala. The further case of the appellants was that at the time of the marriage itself	 which was performed on May 10	 1938	 Sumitra Devi made a "sankalpa" of the gift of four houses at Asansol	 which was accepted by Nand Lal Sao on behalf of Kamala	 and the gift was later confirmed on the occasion of the Dwiragaman (Gowna) ceremony which took place in December	 1938	 and possession of the houses was also given to her; soon after the marriage	 however	 Sumitra Devi feel ill and the deed of gift was actually executed and registered on March 10	 1940	 some two years after the marriage. This was the deed of gift which was impugned by the plaintiffs respondents. The case of the plaintiffs respondents was that the marriage negotiations took place at Asansol and did not contain any promise of the gift of four houses as marriage dowry. The plaintiffs respondents alleged that the arrangements were that ornaments worth about Rs. 5	000 were to be given to Kamala Devi	 a sum of Rs. 800 was to be paid as travelling expenses of the bridegroom 's party	 and gifts of some moveable properties were to be made out of the balance of the sum of Rs. 10	000 which was set apart for the marriage expenses of Kamala Devi. The plaintiffs respondents denied that there was any ante nuptial promise of a gift of four houses as marriage dowry or that there was any "sankalpa" at the time of marriage or any confirmation of the gift at the Dwiragaman ceremony. They alleged that Sumitra Devi	 under the evil advice of her father and son in law and to deprive the plaintiffs respondents of their right	 made a gift of the four houses at Asansol in favour of Kamala Devi 457 on the 10th March	 1940	 a gift which she was not competent under the law to make. It was alleged that the gift was collusive	 fraudulent and without consideration; and in any event	 it could not be operative beyond the lifetime of Sumitra Devi and was not binding on the reversion	 as she had only a life interest in the corpus of the property and there was no justifying legal necessity for the alienation made by her. It wag also alleged that Sumitra Devi was not legally competent to make a gift	 as marriage dowry of her daughter	 of such a big and unreasonable portion of the estate left by her husband. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties	 the principal issues were Issues Nos. 2 and 3 which were in these terms: "2.Is the defendant No. I competent to make any gift of the properties mentioned in the plaint beyond her lifetime to defendant No. 2 ? Is it void and inoperative against the plaintiffs beyond the lifetime of defendant No. I ? 3. Is the deed of gift executed by defendant No. I in favour of defendant No. 2 with the alleged collusive and fraudulent allegations binding on the plaintiffs on her death ?" It is necessary now to summarise the findings of the Courts below on these issues. On the questions of fact involved in the two issues	 the learned Subordinate Judge came to the following findings : (1) the marriage of Kamala Devi was settled at Deoghar as claimed by Mst. Sumitra Devi and not At Asansol; (2) there was	 however	 no promise of any gift by her of four houses at Asansol either at the time of the settlement of the marriage terms at Deoghar or during the marriage ceremony; (3) the story of the delivery of possession of the houses to Kamala Devi was not supported by reliable evidence. Basing his decision on the aforesaid findings of fact	 the learned Subordinate Judge ' held that the interest created in favour of Sumitra Devi in respect of the properties allotted to her on partition was in the nature of an ordinary maintenance grant and she had no right to alienate the same in favour of her daughter. Even if she had the limited right of 458 disposal	 as in the case of a Hindu widow	 she was not competent to execute any deed of gift	 except with regard to a reasonable portion of the estate of her husband at the time of the marriage of Kamala Devi or on the occasion of the Gowna ceremony. Though the learned Subordinate Judge found that the properties given to Kamala Devi constituted a reasonable portion of the estate	 he held that the gift not having been made at the time of the marriage or on the occasion of the Gowna ceremony in accordance with the provi sions of section 123	 Transfer of Property Act	 was not binding on the plaintiffs respondents and could not operate beyond the lifetime of Sumitra Devi. He accordingly decreed the suit. The learned Judges of the High Court formulated five questions of fact	 four of which are important for our purpose	 and on a fresh consideration of the evidence on the record	 came to the following findings thereon: (1) a final settlement of the terms of marriage was made at Deoghar and the terms which were settled between the parties were: (a) that Sumitra Devi would arrange for the gift of ornaments worth about Rs. 5	000	 (b) a sum of Rs. 800 would be paid for meeting the expenses of travelling of the bridegroom 's party from Patna to Asansol	 (e) a sum of Rs. 51 would be paid for the Tilak ceremony and (d) a gift of four houses at Asansol	 worth about Rs. 20	000	 would be made in favour of Kamala Devi	 though the evidence led on behalf of the appellants did not make it absolutely clear or specific that the promise related to the four particular houses which were the subjectmatter of the subsequent gift; (2) the plaintiffs respondents had nothing to do either with the settlement of the terms of marriage or with any control or management of the marriage ceremony; (3) there was no reliable evidence that Sumitra Devi had made a " sankalpa " of the gift of the houses when the bride was given in marriage and the question of confirming such a gift at the Gowna ceremony did not therefore arise; (4) it was not proved by reliable evidence that the possession of the houses in question	 was made over to Kamala Devi before the actual execution of 459 the deed of gift. Relying on the decision in Debi Mangal Prasad Singh vs Mahadeo Prasad Singh (1)	 the learned Judges of the High Court pointed out that even in cases governed by the Mitakshara (the parties in this case are admittedly governed by the Benares school of Mitakshara law) the share allotted to Sumitra Devi on partition was not her stridhan but stood on the same footing as property inherited by her from her husband and that on her death the property would pass not to her stridhan heirs but to the sons or grandsons. The learned Judges then referred to the decision in Churaman Sahu vs Go pi Sahu(2) and observed that though it was competent for a Hindu widow	 governed by the Mitakshara	 to make a valid gift of a reasonable portion of the immoveable property of her husband to her daughter subsequent to the marriage ceremony	 the gift in Churaman Sahu 's case was made at the time of the Dwiragaman (Gowna) ceremony which was really a part of the marriage ceremony	 while the gift in the present case was made some two years after the marriage. They then said: "In the case now before us the marriage and the Gowna ceremony took place in 1938 and the document was executed in March 1940	 the lapse of time between the two is too great to describe the gift to have been made on the occasion of either the marriage or the Gowna ceremony. The ante nuptial promise cannot be regarded as a gift having been made on the occasion of the marriage. In view of the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act we can only consider the gift to have been made at the time when the deed was executed and registered. " On the question whether the gift in favour of Kamala Devi by Sumitra Devi (I) (1912) L.R. 39 I.A. 121.(2) Cal.1. 460 was of a reasonable portion of her husband 's properties	 the learned Judges observed: " In the present case	 the value of the houses gifted was just above Rs. 18	000 which was about a fourth of the value of each share allotted (viz.	 above Rs. 73	000). Even if the provision of Rs. 10	000 made in the partition decree for meeting the marriage expenses be taken into account	 we cannot say that the value of the gifted houses was disproportionate or unreasonable. " In the result	 the High Court affirmed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants who are the appellants here. It is necessary to state now the contentions which have been urged before us on behalf of the appellants	 and they may be put in two main categories (a) contentions with regard to the findings of fact	 and (b) contentions of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has impeached the concurrent finding of the Courts below that there was no " sankalpa " or promise of a gift of the four houses in question at the time of the marriage ceremony which	 it was alleged	 was followed by a confirmation of the gift at the Gowna ceremony. The finding has been impeached on the ground of a serious error of record said to have been committed by the High Court and on the ground of non consideration of relevant evidence. It has been argued before us that the proper finding should have been that Sumitra Devi made a "sankalpa " of the gift of the four houses in question after the Sampradan ceremony on the occasion of the marriage of Kamala Devi and that the gift was accepted by Nand Lal on behalf of his minor daughter in law and that such a gift was again confirmed at the Gowna ceremony. The main contentions of law are three in number: firstly	 it has been contended that even accepting the findings of the final Court of fact as correct	 the gift being of a reasonable portion of the estate of Ram Kishori Lal Sao and in pursuance and fulfilment of an ante nuptial agreement made by Sumitra Devi at the time of the final settlement of the marriage negotiations at Deoghar	 was for the spiritual 461 benefit of Ram Kishori Lal and valid in Hindu law; any such lapse of time as occurred in the execution and registration of the deed of gift was immaterial	 if the deed of gift was in fulfilment of the moral obligation flowing from the ante nuptial agreement; secondly	 it was suggested that Sumitra Devi got an absolute right in the properties given to her as her share on partition; thirdly	 a reference was made to section 14 of the and it has been argued that in view of the said provisions the plaintiffs respondents were not entitled to the reliefs which they claimed. It may be stated here that arguments in the case had concluded before the Court closed for the annual vacation in 1956 and during the vacation the 	 came into force on June 17	 1956. On an application filed by the appellants	 fresh arguments were heard with regard to the provisions of section 14 of the . We proceed now to deal with the contentions in the order in which we have stated them. First	 we take up the contentions with regard to the findings of fact referred to above. It has been pointed out to us that the learned Judges of the High Court made a serious error of record in dealing with the oral evidence as to the verbal gift said to have been made at the time of the marriage of Kamala Devi and the acceptance of 	such a gift by Nand Lal	 father in law of Kamala Devi. In dealing with the oral evidence on this question	 the learned Judges have said: "If we leave out of account for the present the evidence of Sumitra Devi and Bijoy as also of Kamal	 who has been contradicted on a very material point by the other witnesses and also Nand Lal	 father of Bijoy	 we are left with Parasuram and Rash Behary. Parasuram	 a tenant	 happens to be present at the psychological moment only for a few minutes when the Sankalpa is being made. " The High Court clearly made a mistake in dealing with the evidence of Parasuram Sharma and confused Parasuram Sharma (witness No. 16) with Pashupati Sarkar (witness No. 10). Pashupathi Sarkar was a tenant of Sumitra Devi and it was his evidence that he went to 462 the place of marriage at about 12 midnight or 1 a.m. and stayed there for two minutes only and then came away. Parasuram Sharma (witness No. 16) was not a tenant of Sumitra Devi. He was the Head Master of the Indian H.E. School at Patna	 a school where Bijoy	 husband of Kamala	 was a pupil for two years. This Head Master said that he attended the marriage as a member of the bridegroom 's party and was present when from behind the purdah Sumitra Devi made a "sankalpa" of the gift of four houses; this was con veyed by Ganapati Sastri who recited "mantras" and was accepted by Nand Lal. It is unfortunate that the High Court confused Parasuram Sharma (witness No. 16) with Pashupati Sarkar (witness No. 10)	 with the result that Parasuram Sharma 's evidence was not properly considered by the High Court. This defect in the consideration of the evidence by the High Court is undoubtedly there. The point for consideration is if this is a Sufficient ground for departure from the ordinary rule of this Court not to go behind the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Though the mistake made is unfortunate	 we do not think that it is sufficient to disturb the finding of the Courts below or even to re open the finding at this stage. It is worthy of note that the learned Subordinate Judge made no mistake about Pashupati and Parasuram. He pointed out that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants with regard to the verbal gift at the time of the marriage and its acceptance by Nand Lal	 were mostly interested witnesses and none of them were really independent. Even Parasuram Sharma	 whose evidence has been placed before us by learned counsel for the appellants	 cannot be said to be completely independent. He was invited to attend the marriage as a member of the bridegroom 's party and he said that he Overheard Sumitra Devi saying that she was making a "sankalpa" of the gift of four houses as promised evidence which is not of a very satisfactory nature. There were many other criticisms of the evidence regarding the verbal gift at the time of the marriage; the learned Judges of the High Court have referred to these criticisms and they accepted some of them	 One 463 of the criticisms which greatly weighed with the learned Subordinate Judge was the absence of any reference to the gift of four houses in contemporaneous Court proceedings with regard to the withdrawal of Rs. 10	000 by Sumitra Devi	 the sum which was set apart by the partition decree for the marriage expenses of Kamala Devi. This criticism was not	 however	 fully accepted by the learned Judges of the High Court who placed greater reliance on the evidence of Rai Saheb Jogendra Nath Roy (witness No. 14) who was the most respectable and reliable witness examined on behalf of the appellants. The evidence of this witness supported the evidence of Sumitra Devi with regard to the promise made regarding the gift of four Asansol houses at the time of the settlement of marriage negotiations at Deoghar. There can be no doubt that Rai Saheb Jogendra Nath Roy was a very respectable witness and had no reasons to tell lies. Though he supported that part of the evidence of Sumitra Devi which related to the promise of a gift of four houses at Asansol at the time of the marriage negotiations at Deoghar	 he made no statement about a verbal gift having been made at the time of the marriage itself. The witness said that he went to Sumitra Devi 's house on the evening of the marriage and stayed for fifteen to twenty five minutes only. He further said that he was not present at the time of the marriage ceremony. It may	 therefore	 be that Rai Saheb Jogendra Nath Roy was not present at the time when the verbal gift was alleged to have been made. By far and large	 the learned Judges of the High Court did examine with care the oral evidence with regard to the alleged verbal gift at the time of the marriage and but for the unfortunate confusion between Parasuram Sharma and Pashupati Sarkar	 we do not think that the considerstion of the oral evidence by the High Court is open to any other serious criticism. The learned Judges rightly pointed out a serious discrepancy which existed between the evidence of Kamal Narayan Pandey (witness No. 8)	 who is said to have acted as the priest for the marriage	 and the evidence of other witnesses with regard to the "lagan" or time 6o 60 464 of marriage. Taking all these circumstances into con sideration	 we do not think that we shall be justified in going behind the finding of the Courts below that )la 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 daughterin 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 take place. As the appellants have impeached the finding of the Courts below with regard to the verbal gift said to have been made at the time of the marriage	 the respondents have also impeached before us the finding of the High Court about an ante nuptial agreement said to have been made at Deoghar. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that there were no compelling reasons for the High Court	 which was the appellate Court	 to differ from the appreciation of the oral evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge	 who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses	 with regard to the question of the ante nuptial agreement said to have been made at Deoghar. It is true that the learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the evidence of the witnesses who testified to the terms of settlement of the marriage negotiations at Deoghar. What tipped the scale in favour of the finding arrived at by the High Court on this point was the evidence of Rai Sahib Jogendra Nath Roy (witness No. 14). The learned Subordinate Judge gave certain reasons for not accepting the evidence of this witness. The learned Judges of the High Court considered those reasons very carefully and rightly pointed out that there were no good grounds for thinking that Rai Saheb Jogendra Nath Roy had fallen a victim to lapse of memory or for holding that he was an interested witness. The evidence of Rai Sabeb Jogendra Nath Roy was considered in the context of contemporaneous Court proceedings for the withdrawal of Rs. 10	000 and the learned Judges 465 of the High Court accepted the explanation which Rai Saheb Jogendra Nath Roy gave for not mentioning the promise of a gift of four houses in Asansol in the application which Sumitra Devi made for the withdrawal of the said sum of Rs. 10	000. In our opinion	 the finding of the High Court as to an ante nuptial agreement for the gift of four houses at Asansol	 worth about Rs. 20	000	 is not vitiated by any error of fact or law. That finding must	 therefore	 be accepted as a correct finding	 even though the learned Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion with regard to it. Having disposed of the contentions of fact urged before us	 we proceed now to a consideration of the contentions of law. It may be convenient to dispose of	 first	 the argument somewhat faintly advanced on behalf of the appellants that even prior to the enactment of the 	 Sumitra Devi had an absolute right of disposal in the share allotted to her on partition in 1933 36 under Mitakshara law. The question whether the share allotted to a mother on partition is stridhan or not	 according to the Benares school	 was left open by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bhugwandeen Doobey vs Myna Baee(1)	 the very case in which they held that property inherited by a woman was not stridhan according to the Mitakshara. In Debi Mangal Prasad Singh vs Mahadeo Prasad Singh (2)	 the Allahabad High Court	 after a review of all the authorities on the subject	 held that it was stridhan ; but the Privy Council held that it stood on the same footing as property inherited by a woman and that it was not stridhan. The actual point decided in Debi Mangal Prasad 's case was that there was no substantial difference in principle between a woman 's property acquired by inheritance and that acquired by partition. It is worthy of note that the partition decree proceeded on the footing that Sumitra Devi would be entitled to the income from the properties allotted to her but should not be in a position to prejudice the reversioners by destroying the corpus. The preliminary decree for partition stated: "The Commissioner is further directed to allot as little liquid (1) [1863] M.I.A.487	514. (2) (1912) L. R. 39 I.A. 121. 466 cash to the share of plaintiff No. 2 (Sumitra Devi) as possible on partition and as a rule should allot such properties to her share of which she may receive income without trouble	 but may not prejudice the reversioners by destroying the corpus ". It follows	 therefore	 that under the Mitakshara law and also under the partition decree	 Mst. Sumitra Devi did not have an absolute right or interest in the share allotted to her on partition. Under the decision in Debi Mangal Prasad Singh vs Mahadeo Prasad Singh (1)	 the property allotted to Mst. Sumitra Devi on partition stood on the same footing as property inherited by her from her husband. She had no absolute right of disposal of the property. This brings us to a consideration of the principal point argued before us on behalf of the appellants	 namely	 whether Sumitra Devi was competent to make a gift of a reasonable portion of the estate of her husband to her daughter Kamala	 Devi as a marriage dowry in pursuance and fulfilment of an ante nuptial agreement	 even though the gift was made some two years after the marriage ceremony. This point was urged before us	 as we have already stated	 prior to and irrespective of the enactment of the . The argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that Sumitra Devi was competent to make such a gift under the Hindu law	 even as it stood prior to the enactment of the . We shall	 therefore	 deal with this point	 irrespective of the provisions of section 14 of the . It may be stated at the very outset that the concurrent finding of the Courts below was that the gift of four houses at Asansol	 of a value of about Rs. 19	000	 was not disproportionate or unreasonable if one had regard to the large extent of properties left by 'Rain Kishori Lal Sao on his death; this was so even taking into consideration the sum of Rs. 10	000 which was set apart for the marriage expenses of Kamala Devi and which was withdrawn by Sumitra Devi. In our opinion	 that finding is correct and must be accepted as such. Therefore	 the narrow question is if Sumitra Devi	was competent to make the gift of four houses at (1) (1912) L.R. 39 I.A. 121. 467 Asansol as marriage dowry to her daughter	 some two years after the marriage	 in pursuance and fulfilment of the ante nuptial agreement made at Deoghar. There are a number of decisions bearing on the question	 to which our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the parties	 and we propose now to examine some of them. In Sardar Singh vs Kunj Behari Lal (1) it was observed: "There can be no doubt upon a review of the Hindu law	 taken in conjunction with the decided cases	 that the Hindu system recognises two sets of religious acts. One is in connection with the actual obsequies of the deceased	 and the periodical performance of the obsequial rites prescribed in the Hindu religious law	 which are considered as essential for the salvation of the soul of the deceased. The other relates to acts which although not essential or obligatory	 are still pious observances which conduce to the bliss of the deceased 's soul. In the later cases this distinction runs clearly through the views of the learned judges. . . With reference to the first class of acts	 the powers of the Hindu female who holds the property are wider than in respect of the acts which are simply pious and if performed are meritorious so far as they conduce to the spiritual benefit of the deceased. In one case	 if the income of the property	 or the property itself	 is not sufficient to cover the expenses	 she is entitled to sell the whole of it. In the other case	 she can alienate a small portion of the property for the pious or charitable purpose she may have in view. " In a very early decision	 Cossi Naut Bysack vs Hurroo Soondry Dossee (2)	 which war	 heard by the Supreme Court at Calcutta in 1819 and by the Judicial Committee in 1826 and quoted in Churaman Sahu vs Gopi Sahu (3)	 it was stated by Lord Gifford that a Hindu widow had " for certain purposes a clear authority to dispose of her husband 's property and might do it for religious purposes	 including dowry to a daughter. " There are several texts which lay down that it is the imperative religious duty and a moral obligation of a father	 mother or other guardian to give a girl 'in marriage (1) (1922) L. R. 49 I.A. 383	 391. (2) 2 Morley 's Digest 198. (3) Cal. 468 before she attains puberty. Some of these texts have been quoted in Churaman Sahu 's case(1) and Ram Sumran Prasad vs Gobind Das (2). According to these texts	 the marriage of a girl by her father is enjoined as a religious duty in order to prevent him from being degraded and visited with sin ; there is also direct spiritual benefit conferred upon him by such a marriage. Marriage	 according to the Sastras	 is a religious act; a Sanskara for a man or woman. According to Manu	 Chapter 11	 verse 67	 the sacrament of marriage is to a female what initiation with the thread is to a male. The Mitakshara also recognises marriage as a religious obligation for both male and female (Sundrabai Javji Dagdu Pardeshi vs Shivnarayana Ridkarna (3)). The texts also recognise that gifts can be made at the time of or on the occasion of the marriage or any ceremonies connected therewith	 and may also be made in fulfilment of a promise made in connection with the marriage; some decisions have gone to the extent of laying down that the moral obligation continues till it is discharged or fulfilled and such fulfilment may be subsequent to the marriage: see Mitakshara	 Chapter 1	 section VII	 Placitum 5 to 14. In Placitum 9 is quoted Manu 's text: "To the maiden sisters	 let their brothers give portions out of their own allotments respectively; to each the fourth part of the appropriate share; and they	 who refuse to give it shall be degraded. Vengidusami Ayyar (4)	 it was observed with reference to the aforesaid passages in the Mitakshara	 and also to certain passagein the Smriti Chandrika	 wherein the texts of Manu Yajnavalkya and other Smriti writers dealing with the question of (1) Cal. 1	 7	 (2) Pat. 646	 681. (3) Bom. (4) Mad.113	 114. 469 allotment to be made by brothers to their maiden sisters at the time of partition	 were commented upon	 that with regard to the true meaning of those texts commentators were divided: some of them held that all that the texts mean is that funds required for the marriage of sisters should be provided out of their father 's estate but other commentators	 Vijnaneswara among them	 laid down that inclusive of their marriage expenses sisters were entitled to a provision not exceeding a fourth of what they would have got had they been males. It was further observed therein that it was not necessary to decide which of the two views was to be taken as law. Subramania Ayyar J. then said: "Assuming that	 as argued for the appellant	 the view advocated by Vijnaneswara and his followers is not law	 the fact that so high an authority as the author of the Mitakshara propounds a rule thus favourable to maiden daughters ought to make one hesitate to accept as sound the exceedingly limited construction which was insisted on on behalf of the appellant and which can scarcely be said to be in itself very reasonable	 viz.	 that the texts justify a disbursement out of the estate of only the price of things required in connection with the celebration of the marriage. In my opinion	 the better and sounder view is	 as contended for the respondents	 that the authorities should be Understood to empower a qualified owner like Thaiyyu Ammal to do all acts proper and incidental to the marriage of a female according to the general practice of the community to which she belongs. " It should be noted that the observations aforesaid were made in a case where a widow gave her daughter in marriage and at the time of the marriage made a gift of a portion of the lands inherited by her from her husband to ' her son in law	 and the question was if the widow Thaiyyu Ammal	 who was a Hindu qualified owner	 had authority to make such a gift. In Kudutamma vs Narasimha Charyulu (1)	 the brother	 as managing member of the joint family	 made a gift of a reasonable portion of the joint family Properties to his sisters. The sisters were married in (1) 	 531	 532.470 the father 's lifetime but were left for some reason or other without a marriage portion. The gift was made after the father 's death and subsequent to the marriage. It was held that the brother had authority to make the gift. Miller J. observed: "If then a brother	 finding that his sister	 though married in his father 's lifetime	 has been for any reason left without a marriage portion which she ought to have received	 it is difficult to see how he can be held to have exceeded his powers if he makes good the deficiency out of the family property. We are not required to hold that he is bound to do so; we are not required to hold that his father was bound in law to give his daughter anything at her marriage; it is only necessary for us to hold that the gift is not in excess of the powers of the brother and cannot therefore be recalled by him or avoided by his son. " Wallis	 J. who concurred in the judgment	 observed: "In such a case there was	 I think	 a strong moral obligation on the joint family over the father as managing member to make a gift out of the joint family property on the occasion of the marriages either to the girls themselves or to their husbands as a provision for them	 and the fact that the father maintained both the daughters and their husbands out of the joint family property until his death may be regarded as a continuing recognition of such moral obligation. Mere neglect on the part of the joint family to fulfil a moral obligation at the time of the marriages cannot	 in my opinion	 be regarded as putting an end to it	 and I think it continued until it was discharged by the deed of gift now sued on and executed after the father 's death by his son	 the 1st defendant	 who succeeded him as managing member of the joint family. " In Churaman Sahu 's case (1)	 the gift was no doubt made on the occasion of the daughter 's gowna ceremony which took place some two years after	 the marriage	 and it was held that the gowns ceremony was a ceremony of importance	 closely connected with the marriage	 though it was not a ceremony necessary to complete the marriage. The gift was upheld on that footing. What is worthy of note	 however	 is (1) Cal.I. 7. 471 that in Churaman Sahu 's case(1)	 the decision in Kudutamma vs Narasimha Charyulu (2) was approved	 and that was a decision in which the gift was made subsequent to the marriage and not on the occasion of any particular ceremony. Sundararamayya vs Sitamma (3) is another decision of some importance. There the marriage took place about forty years before the gift and there was no evidence that the father had any intention to give any property at the time of the marriage. The question was if in those circumstances the gift was valid. After referring to the decision in Churaman Sahu vs Gopi Sahu (1) and Ramasami Ayyar vs Vengidusami Ayyar (4)	 it was observed: "We see no reason to differ from these two decisions. The father or the widow is not bound to giver any property. There may be no legal but only a moral obligation. But it is difficult to see why the moral obligation does not sustain a gift because it was not made to the daughter at the time of marriage but only some time later. The moral obligation of the plaintiff 's father continued in force till it was discharged by the gift in 1899. " The learned Judges referred with approval to the earlier decision in Kudutamma vs Narasimha Charyulu (2). It was observed that no hard and fast rule could be laid down to define the extent and limit of the widow 's power of disposing of the property inherited by her for the marriage of her daughter. The decision of the same case when it went up in Letters Patent appeal is reported as Bhagwati Shukul vs Ram Jatan Tewari (6). The decision of the single judge was upheld on the (1) Cal. (4) Mad. 113	 113. (2) 	 531	 532. (5) A.I.R. 1922 All	 381. (3) Mad. 628	 629 (6) All. 297. 61 472 ground that in order to get the girl married	 it was " a sheer necessity " for the widow	 to provide a dowry of Rs. 500 or its equivalent by the gift of the property. The property was very small in value	 being in the neighbourhood of Rs. 500 only	 and where under the circumstances the marriage of the girl into a suitable Brahmin family	 having regard to her blindness and infirmity	 necessitated the spending of the equivalent in value of that property	 then the alienation was a " sheer legal necessity. What is reasonable must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Vettor Ammal vs Pooch Ammal (1)	 the gift was made some years after the marriage. The gift was upheld and was held to be reasonable being about one sixth of the whole property. In Sailabala vs Baikuntha Nath (2)	 a gift made by a widow of twelve annas share of her husband 's estate on the occasion of the marriage of her daughter was supported on the ground that it was impossible to define the extent and limit of the widow 's power of disposing of property inherited by her because it must depend upon the circumstances of the disposition whenever such disposition was made. The gift was made in pursuance of an earlier promise and a verbal declaration made at the time of the Gantha Pakrai (catching hold of the skirt of the mother in law) performed during the marriage. The only limitation placed upon this power of making a gift is that it should bear a reasonable proportion to the entire property of the deceased father and that it should be justifiable in the circumstances of the case in terms of the principle laid down in Cossi Naut Bysack vs Hurroosoondry Dossee (1) ". In Sithamahalakshmamma vs kotayya (2)	 Mr. Justice Venkataramana Rao summarised the case law in the following words: " Thus it will be seen that it is competent to a Hindu father to make a gift of a reasonable portion of the ancestral imoveable property to his daughters without reference to the son; It is a power vested in the father under the Hindu law	 which he can exercise subject to the restriction of limitations imposed on him by the said law. The decided cases have held that the gift must be a reasonable one. The question whether a particular gift is reasonable or not will have to be judged according to the state of the family at the time of the gift	 the extent of the family immoveable property	 the indebtedness of the family	 and the paramount charges which the family was under an obligation to provide for; and after having regard to those circumstances if the gift can be held to be reasonable such a gift will be binding on the joint family members irrespective of the consent of the members of the family If under the law it is a moral obligation on the family to make a provision as and by way of a marriage portion and such obligation continues until it is fulfilled by a reasonable provision being made therefor	 the fact that one of the sons has become indebted cannot take away the power of the father to make such a gift. In Pratap Kunwar vs Raj Bahadur Singh (3)the marriage took (1) 2 Morley 's Digest 198. (3) A.I.R. 1943 Oudh 316. (2) A.L.R. 	 827	 474 place. in 1923 and the gift was made in 1926. After held that examining the evidence the learned Judges Mst. Raj Ruer	 the widow in question	 did not make any "sankalpa" of the gift of fifteen villages at the on behalf of the time of her daughter 's marriage. On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued before them that a Hindu widow could make a gift of her husband 's immoveable property v at the time of her marriage. The learned Judges repelled this contention and held that the gift made by Mst. Raj Kuer in favour of her daughter and son in law was valid	 even though she did not make a " sankalpa vs at the time of marriage. In Abhesang Tirabhai vs Raisang(1) 	 it was held that gifts by a Hindu widow on the occasion of her daughter 's marriage are valid as they are understood in Hindu law to conduce to the spiritual benefit of the widow 's husband. In Ramalinga annavi vs Narayana Annavi(2)	 a father a made a gift to his daughter of a sum of Rs. 5	000 and a usufructuary mortgage. As against the very large number of decisions refered to above	 the only decision which can be said to strike a dissentient note is the decision in ganga Bisheshar vs Pirthi Pal(3). That was a case in which one Debi Prasad executed a deed of gift of a certain share in a certain village	 being the ancestral property of his family	 in favour of the defendant ganga Bisheshar	 the father in law of his daughter	 on April 25	 1872	 about two years after the marriage of the daughter. Mr. Justice Spankie observed as follows: "I understand the finding of both the lower Courts to be that the transfer was not made for any necessary purpose allowed by the Hindu law. The deed of gift appears to have been made by the father in performance of a a dowry to his daughter. L. R. 602. (3) All. 635	 638. 475 tinder the Hindu law. It was not necessary for the support of the daughter	 it was not for any religious or pious work	 nor was it a pressing necessity. Daughters must be maintained until their marriage	 and the expenses of their marriage must be paid. But in this case the gift was not made at the time of the marriage. It was not executed until two years after the marriage. " There is 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 fulfilment of which it was competent for the father to execute a deed of gift in favour of the daughter of a reasonable portion of the estate. On an examination of the decisions referred to above	 the following principles clearly emerge: (1) It is the imperative	 religious duty and a moral obligation of a father	 mother or other guardian to give a girl in marriage to a suitable husband; it is a duty which must be fulfilled to prevent degradation	 and direct spiritual benefit is conferred upon the father by such a marriage. (2) A Hindu widow in	 possession of the estate of her deceased husband can make an alienation for religious acts which are not essential or obligatory but are still pious observances which conduce to the bliss of the deceased husband 's soul. (3) In the case of essential or obligatory acts	 if the income of the property or the property itself is not sufficient to cover the expenses	 she is entitled to sell the whole of it; but for acts which are pious and which conduce to the bliss of the deceased husband 's soul	 she can alienate a reasonable portion of the property. (4) Gifts 'by a widow of landed property to her daughter or son in law on the occasion of the marriage or any ceremonies connected with the marriage	 are well recognised in Hindu law. (5) If a promise is made of such a gift for or at the time of the marriage	 that promise may be fulfilled afterwards and it is not essential to make a gift at the time of the marriage but it	 may be made afterwards in fulfilment of the promise. (6) Some decisions 476 go to the length of holding that there is a moral or religious obligation of giving a portion of the joint family property for the benefit of the daughter and the son in law	 and a gift made long after the marriage may be supported upon the ground that the gift when made fulfils that moral or religious obligation. In the case before us	 it is not even necessary to go to the extent to which the decisions covered by the last item stated above (item 6) have gone. The finding of the final Court of fact is that there was an antenuptial agreement by Sumitra Devi that she would give four houses at Asansol	 of the value of Rs. 20	000	 to her daughter as marriage dowry. It was open to Sumitra Devi to fulfil that promise as a religious act which conferred spiritual benefit upon her deceased husband	 irrespective of the consideration whether she made a " sankalpa " at the time of the marriage or not. The learned Judges of the High Court referred to section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act which lays down that for the purpose of making a gift of immoveable property	 the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor	 and attested by at least two witnesses. In one part of their judgment		 they said that but for the aforesaid provisions it might have been possible to consider the gift as having been made on the occasion of the marriage	 the implementation of which was subsequent. In our opinion the learned Judges of the High Court were in error with regard to the scope and effect of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 123 does not deal with nor does it affect the power of a Hindu widow to make an alienation of a reasonable portion of her husband 's estate in favour of the daughter as marriage dowry. That right is governed by Hindu law and it is open to a widow to make an effective gift in favour of her daughter 477 subsequent to the marriage	 if the conditions laid down 	by Hindu law are fulfilled. For the reasons given above	 we hold that the alienation made by Mst. Sumitra Devi in favour of her daughter Kamala Devi on March 10	 '1940	 was valid and binding on the reversioners. The decision of the High Court to the contrary was erroneous in law. We now turn to the 	 which came into force on June 17	 1956. Explanation. In this sub section	 I property ' includes both moveable and immoveable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise	 or at a partition	 or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance	 or by gift from any person	 whether a relative or not	 before	 at or after her marriage	 or by her own skill or exertion	 or by purchase or by prescription	 or in any other manner whatsoever	 and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift	 will or other instrument or the decree	 order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property " There is no doubt that by reason of the use 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 immoveable 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 478 'that the four houses in question are now in the possession of Kamala Devi and under section 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 B. 14 which says that nothing in sub section (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 section (1) has no application to that estate. It is further argued that Kamala Devi as donee could not get a larger estate than what the donlor had in the property	 if the view of Hindu law	 as contended for by learned counsel for the respondents	 is accepted as correct; therefore	 Kamal Devi is not entitled to the benefit of sub section(1) of section 14. We do not think that it is necessary to decide this case on the rival contentions presented to us with regard to a. 14 of the . We have already held that under Hindu law Mat. Sumitra Devi could make a gift in favour of her daughter as marriage. dowry	 two" years after the marriage	 in fulfilment of the ante nuptial 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 section 14 of the . For the reasons given above	 we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiffs respondents must be dismissed and the appellants will be entitled to their costs throughout.

Summary:
In fulfilment of an ante nuptial promise made on the occasion of the settlement of the terms of marriage of her daughter	 a Hindu widow	 governed by the Benares School of Hindu Law	 executed a registered deed of gift in respect Of 4 houses allotted to her share by a partition decree	 in favour of her daughter as her marriage dowry about two years after the marriage. The partition decree gave her a	 right to the income	 but no right to part with the corpus of the property to the prejudice of the reversioners. Her step sons brought a suit for a declaration that the deed of gift was void and inoperative beyond her lifetime and could not bind the reversioners. The trial court found that the gifted properties constituted a reasonable portion of the estate	 but that the gift not having been made at 453 the time of the marriage or on the occasion of the Gowna (Dwiragaman) ceremony in accordance with the provisions of section I 23 Of the Transfer of Property Act	 was not binding on the reversioners beyond the lifetime of the widow and decreed the suit. The High Court found that the widow had made the ante nuptial promise	 but that the gift having been made about two years after the marriage or the Gowna ceremony	 the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to gifts stood in the way of considering the same as having been made on the occasion of the marriage but implemented later	 and affirmed the decision of the trial court	 although the gifted houses were found to constitute a reasonable portion of her husband 's estate. The contentions in appeal on behalf of the widow and the daughter were (1) that the widow had the power in Hindu Law	 as it stood before the enactment of the 	 to execute the deed of gift in question and (2) that section 14 Of the said Act bad the effect of making them full owners of the property in suit. Held	 that the deed of gift in favour of the daughter was valid in law and binding on the reversioners and the appeal must succeed. Under the Benares School of Hindu Law	 as it stood prior to the enactment of the 	 as also under the partition decree	 the properties allotted to the widow constituted her widow 's estate as on inheritance and she had no absolute right of disposal over them. Bhugwandeen Doobey vs Myna Baee	 (1868) II M. 1. A	 487	 referred to. Debi Mangal Prasad Singh vs Mahadeo Prasad Singh	 (1912) L. R. 39 1. A. 121	 followed. In Hindu Law the marriage of a daughter is a pious act and confers direct spiritual benefit on the father and a widow has the power to make a gift of a reasonable portion of her husband 's estate as marriage dowry to the daughter	 even after the marriage	 in fulfilment of an ante nuptial promise	 whether she makes the I sankalpa ' at the time of the marriage or not. Ganga Bisheshar vs Pirthi Pal	 (1880) 1. L. R. 2 All. 635	 disapproved. Case law reviewed. This power of the widow is one conferred on her by Hindu Law and is not affected by the provisions of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act	 though the gift to be legally effective must be made in the manner prescribed by that section. Although there is no doubt that sub section (1) Of section 14 Of the 	 gives a retrospective operation to the provisions of that section so as to make a fermale Hindu a 454 full owner of immoveable property acquired either at a partition or by way of gift	 it is not necessary in the present case to examine the true nature and scope of section 14 Of the Act.