EMINENI GALIB Vs. B VEERANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 5 and 6 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by a reversioner for partition of six items of property which originally belonged to one Subbayya. Subbayya died leaving behind him his widow Ademma, a son Raghavayya and a daughter Lakshmidevamma. Raghavayya died unmarried a few years after his father's death and the estate devolved on his mother Ademma. In 1927 Ademma executed a document, Ex. B-1 dated 30-5-1927 settling Ac. 2-1 cents which is the subject matter of this appeal on her daughter Lakshmidevamma. It was recited therein that the donor's husband Subbayya desired at the time of his death that his wife should give the donee who was then a minor and of feeble health the property mentioned in the schedule. Lakshmidevamma conveyed it to her husband the 1st defendant under Ex. B-2 on 21-4-1938. The 1st defendant in his turn transferred it to his brother the 5th defendant. The 6th defendant is the latter's son. The plaintiff claiming to be the sister's son of Subbayya filed the suit for recovery of a l/3rds share in the property left by Raghavayya, defendants 2 and 3 being the sons of the other sisters of Subbayya. The suit convered six items of property, but we are only concerned with item 1 which is of an extent of Ac. 2-1 cents and which formed the subject matter of Ex. B-l. Item 1 originally belonged to the paternal aunt of Subbayya and she settled it on him. Various defences were raised to the suit but the one relevant for the purpose of this enquiry is that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 could not claim the suit properties for the reason that it was validly gifted by Ademma in pursuance of the directions of her husband and that consequently the donee under Ex. B-1 could settle it on the 1st defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit as against defendants 5 and 6 on the grounds that by reason of the oral will of Subbayya, Ademma could convey the property to her daughter and that even otherwise it was competent for Ademma to give the property to her daughter as a marriage provision. On appeal the Subordinate Judge disagreed with the trial court regarding the oral will and decreed the suit as against the 5th and 6th defendants also without going into the question whether Ademma could make a gift of a part of the estate inherited by her as a marriage provision. Defendants 5 and 6 who are aggrieved by the above judgment have brought this second appeal.

(2.) The two questions that arise for consideration are:

(3.) This leads me to the question whether it was within the competence of Ademma to make a gift of a portion of the property that devolved on her on the death of her son. The principle that the widow can make a gift of a reasonable extent of her husband's property to the daughter at the time of marriage either before or after, applies, in my opinion, equally to a gift inherited by her as the mother because the brother also is under an obligation to defray the marriage expenses of his sister. In fact, Ramaswamy v. Venguduswamy is an instance where the mother in whom, the property of her son who died childless vested, gave a portion of the property to her son-in-law on the occasion of his marriage with her daughter. It is now too late to contend that such a gift cannot be made by a limited owner who succeeds to the estate either as a widow or as a mother having regard to the catina of decisions including the one already cited above. See also Churaman Sahu v. Gopi Sahu.