SESBAYYA Vs. PADALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of O. S. No. 52 of 1947, a suit filed by the respondent for establishing her title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession.

(2.) The facts are simple and may be stated. One Bapanamma had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. She died in the year 1936. On 11-12-1929, she executed a gift deed giving the said property to the plaintiff, who is the wife of Bapanamma's brother. In the document it is stated that the said property was gifted to the donor by her parental family, that she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and that she was conveying the same to the plaintiff with absolute rights. It was attested by a nephew of the defendant, and subsequent to the gift, the item was entered in the revenue accounts in the name of the donee. The donee was put in possession under the gift deed and she continued to enjoy the property in her own right, paying the cist. The defendant, who is the vendee from the step-son of the plaintiff, claiming to have acquired the said property under a sale deed trespassed upon the land. The suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs. Both the courts found that Bapanamma had an absolute interest in the suit item, and therefore she had the right to make an absolute gift of the same to the plaintiff. The defendant preferred the above appeal. Mr. Ramachandra Reddi broadly contends that in the case of a gift of property to a female member of the family, the presumption is that only the life interest in the said item was granted. He further argues that having regard to the circumstances of the case, it should be held that the gift must have been only of the life estate in the suit item. Reliance is placed-upon the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram in support of the contention that there is a presumption that in the case of a gift to a female member, the gift is only of the life estate. In that case, the Judicial Committee held on the construction of the document before them that the grant was only of a life estate. At page 14, their Lordships observed :

(3.) The same learned Judge as Judge of the Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal '. stated that the rule of interpretation laid down in Makamtd Shumsool v. Shewukram . has come to be regarded as unsound. The law on the subject has been considered and authoritatively restated by the Supreme Court of India in Natho Lal v. Durga Prasad . at page 561 as follows: