RAMALINGA ANNAVI Vs. NARAYANA ANNAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Madras arise out of a suit which was brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly on January 31, 1910, for a decree for partition in respect of certain moveable and immoveable proparties together with outstandings of a money-lending business on the allegation that they and the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 formed members of a joint undivided Mitakshara family. The following pedigree will explain the relative positions of the parties and their respective contentions.

(2.) [The judgment proceeded at great lenght referring to the evidence. Their "Lordships agreed with the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge in regard to the transaction of 1895 and disagreed with the view of the High Court. This portion of the judgment is omitted as being unnecessary for this report.]

(3.) There remain now the two questions, one relating to the validity of the two gifts made by Lakshmivaraha to the fourth defendant, Ponnu Ammal. The first is an assignment of Rs. 5,000 out of the money which fell to the share of Lakshmivaraha due from the Thiruvavuduthurai Mutt. This was done at the instance of Lakshmivaraha. The other is an assignment of a usufructuary mortgage held by him. In the aggregate the two sums amount to Rs. 8,000, The father has undoubtedly the power under the Hindu law of making, within reasonable limits, gifts of moveable property to a daughter. In one case the Board upheld the gift of a small share of immoveable property on the ground that it was not shown to be unreasonable. In the present case, the gifts relate to sums of money. The only question is whether they were reasonable. Both the Courts in India have answered the question in the affirmative and their Lordships have no materials or ground to hold otherwise.