KALAVAGUNTA SINGARA CHARLU Vs. SREEMAN GUDIMALLA VENKATA SESHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Ramasami Ayyar v. Vengidusami Ayyar 22 M. 113 a sonless widow was held entitled to make a gift to her daughter s husband of a reasonable proportion of the estate (which the widow had inherited as qualified owner) on the occasion of the daughter s marriage, because such a gift of land " is believed to enhance the merit of the primary act viz., the giving of a virgin in marriage," and "a qualified owner" (like a Hindu widow who has inherited her husband s or son s estate) has the power to do all acts proper and incidental to the marriage of a female " of the family to which her husband belonged. In Anavilla Sundararamayya v. Cherla Sitamma 10 Ind. Gas. 56 : 21 M.L.T. 695 : 9 M.L.T. 469 (1911) 1 M.W.K. 422 : 35 M. 628 a Hindu father was held entitled to make a gift of a fair proportion of his lands to his daughter even after her marriage and the gift was held binding on the son of the donor. In Pugalia Vettor Animal v. Vettor Goundan 13 Ind. Cas. 475 : 22 M.L.J. 321 : (1912) M.W.N. 89 : 11 M.L.T. 103. a gift by a Hindu male owner to his deceased co-parcener s daughter of a reasonable portion of the family estate was held binding on the undivided son of the donor.

(2.) In the present case, the gifts were made by a Hindu widow (a qualified owner) to the daughter of her husband s undivided predeceased brother and to the son of another daughter of the said deceased brother. The gift to the niece was after the niece s marriage. (The District Judge s assumption that the brother of the donor s husband was a divided member is clearly erroneous in the face of the plaintiff s own admission in her evidence, there being, as we take it, nothing on the record to support the finding of division).

(3.) The only question, therefore, in this appeal is whether the principle of the cases above quoted is to be still further extended by allowing a qualified owner like a Hindu widow to exercise the privilege of making gifts of reasonable fractions of her husband s estate to her husband s married niece and to the son of another niece long after the niece s marriages. So far as the gift to the husband s niece s son is concerned, it clearly cannot be upheld as he never was a member of the widow s husband s family, though his mother was a member till her marriage.