VENKATASAMI REDDI Vs. RANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the question is whether the defendant has acquired a good title to the inam lands over which Mangamma admittedly had free power of disposition. The instrument by which the conveyance to the defendant is said to have been made is the adoption deed of the 10 March 1894. There can be no doubt as to the individual whom Mangamma intended to benefit, and it is clear also that she must have known the untruth of the recitals made in the deed touching the authority given by her husband, and it is on that authority rather than on the sapinda's consent that her power to adopt is founded. The document says, "The permission accorded by my husband is the essential thing, and in proof thereof the assent of the sapinda was obtained." Then it states the fact of the adoption and its religious consequences. And finally there come the words of gift assuming what is by no means clear that she believed her adoption to be unimpeachable in point of law. I do not think there is anything in the deed to indicate that the gift was to be made dependent on the adoption, nor that it was in the character of adopted son only that the defendant was intended to take. The previous conduct of the widow in parting with the property in favour of the father of the child selected for adoption, and the unfriendly relations between her and her daughter who was to be defeated by an adoption, are circumstances which tend to show that alienation rather than adoption for its own sake was in her mind. The identity of the donee being beyond doubt, the case is in my judgment one in which the false or erroneous description does not vitiate the gift.

(2.) The other ground for questioning the title of the defendant is, 1 think, equally untenable. The District Judge in effect holds that there is no sufficient description of the property given. What Mangamma purported to give was all her undisposed of property, and she describes herself in the document as possessed of Reddi and Inam lands and as residing at Nimmanapalli. It is these inam lands which the defendant claims.

(3.) The Transfer of Property Act recognizes gifts of a man's entire estate and does not in terms require that the property shall be described in the instrument of gift. Even with regard to mortgages it has been held that general words will suffice without any specification of the boundaries or exact locality of the land. Shadi Lal V/s. Thakur Das I.L.R., 12 A. 175.