(1.) In this appeal the Board have again to consider a question which has been, discussed under different guises in a number of cases within the last few years, viz., whether, under Hindu law, a woman taking immovable property by gift from her husband has power to alienate it.
(2.) The most recent decision on the subject is in Shalig Ram V/s. Bawa Charanjit Lal, AIR 1930 PC 239 which cited and followed the judgment of Lord Buckmaster in Bhaidas Shivdas V/s. Bai Gulab, AIR 1922 PC 193. Reference was also made to Ramachandra Rao V/s. Ramachandra Rao, AIR 1922 PC 80, in which Lord Buckmaster made certain remarks explanatory of the decision in Surajmani V. Rabi Nath Ojha, [1908] 80 All 84, another case in which a widow's power of alienation had been called in question, but their Lordships have no doubt that these remarks were not intended to qualify in any way the pronouncement in Bhaidas Shivdas V/s. Bai Gulab (2). There is also an exhaustive judgment of Sir John Edge in Sasiman Chowdhurain V/s. Shib Navayan Chowdhury, AIR 1922 PC 63, to which Lord Buckmaster was a party and which was heard a few days only after Bhaidas Shivdas' case (2).
(3.) Under these circumstances their Lordships feel that the doctrine upon which the decision of the present appeal depends is so well established that no further discussion of the authorities is required.