PANDHARINATH VISHWANATH Vs. GOVIND SHIVRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether a deceased Hindu widow, governed by the Mitakshara, is competent to make a gift of moveables inherited by her from her husband, who died childless and intestate.

(2.) The appeal comes up from Sholapur.

(3.) The facts are simple. There were three brothers, the plaintiff Govind Shivram, defendant 1 Manohar and one Gopal, husband of Gitabai. On the 25 September 1897 a decree for partition between them was passed on an award (Ex. 70); Gopal being of unsound mind was represented by the plaintiff in the arbitration proceedings. Under that decree Gopal was given a specific share in the family property consisting of a house, some ornaments for his wife and about Rs. 4,000 in cash; and on the 1 of December 1898 his share was handed over to his wife Gitabai- see Ex. 71. Gopal died in September 1902 and on the 22 December, 1902 Gitabai, his widow, executed a document, Ex. 65, in favour of the defendant 4, a nephew of Gopal s. That document recites that in consideration of his near relationship, his being the family priest and the fact that he had incurred expenses for the maintenance of herself and her husband for the last five years and for the performance of religious rites, certain debts due by him to her deceased husband amounting to Rs. 1,000 were thereby remitted according to the dying wishes of her husband. The document concludes as follows :--"Therefore as my deceased husband has directed me to make a gift of this our debt to you and as you are a relation and Upadya (family preceptor) of my deceased husband, thus for several reasons having looked at it from the point of view of my interests, worldly as well as religious and after consideration of the whole, I have given the above property in Dana and gift." On the same day she made a will, Ex. 66, in favour of defendant 4 and a grandson of defendant 1, a minor Pandurang, whereby she devised the immoveable property she inherited from her husband to the minor Pandurang absolutely and bequeathed the move-ables in equal half shares between Pandurang and defendant 4. The second defendant in the case was the son of defendant 1, who died after the institution of the suit and the third defendant was his grandson. Defendants 5 and 6 were added as defendants as they were said to be in possession of some of the property specified in the list annexed to the plaint.