K MUTHUKARUPPA PILLAI Vs. SELLATHAMMAL ALIAS KANAKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in dispute was given to the first defendant by her father in 1898 before she was married to the plaintiff: she sold the property to the third defendant in 1912. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the sale is invalid. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.

(2.) There can be no question that if this property is Saudayika, the first defendant was entitled to deal with it at her pleasure. The main argument, therefore, was directed to showing that the term Saudayika does not include gifts prior to marriage. The nature of stridhanam property and its classification with reference to inheritance have given rise to conflicting views. In the Benares School, Courts may be spared a great deal of discussion if the view of the Mitakshara is fully accepted. Vignaneswara commenting on Yagnavalkya s text in Chapter 2, Section 11, paragraph 2, says: "That which was given by the father, by the mother, by the husband or by a brother; and that which was presented by the maternal uncles and the rest, at the time of wedding, before the nuptial fire; and a gift on a second marriage or gratuity on account of supersession, as will be subsequently explained in the text, To a woman whose husband marries a second wife, let him give, etc (and, as indicated) by the word adya (and the rest), property obtained by inheritance, purchase, partition, acceptance, finding: all this is stridhanam according to Manu and the rest." Prom this we might exclude those enumerated in the concluding portion of the paragraph, as the Judicial Committee, though only dealing with a case of property obtained by partition, seem inclined to hold that stridhanam in its narrow sense should be limited to what is mentioned in the previous portion of the paragraph--Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh (1911) 39 I.A. 121. If we regard this restricted class as stridhanam property at the absolute disposal of a woman, we can steer clear of many difficulties. There is however an exception as regards gifts from strangers not given at the nuptial fire or during the marriage procession, and acquisitions made by means of mechanical arts by a married woman. They are subject to the control of the husband because the spirit of the Hindu Law is against a married woman receiving gifts from strangers except at the time of marriage or from making acquisitions during coverture as she is expected to give her time and attention solely to the welfare of her husband and children and to the management of the household affairs. I see nothing in the Mitakshara or in the writings of those whose authority is binding in Southern India against accepting this rule as a workable basis. But Courts have taken into account the subdivisions of stridhanam both in relation to inheritance and the power of disposition as expounded by other commentators. I shall therefore proceed on the same lines and consider whether the property in dispute is subject to any control by the husband.

(3.) An examination of the various commentaries shows that stridhanam property is divisible into Yautaka and Ayautaka. Yautaka is that which is given at the nuptial fire. That interpretation is in accordance with the etymological significance of the term. In that term, moreover, are included all gifts made during the marriage ceremonies. Ayautaka is gift made before or after marriage. Saudayika includes both Yautaka and Ayautaka not received from strangers. It is defined to be gifts from affectionate kindred. This property can be dealt with by a married woman in any way she likes. Whether immoveable property received from the husband should be excluded from this species of disposable property is doubtful, The better view is against such a restriction.