SAKHARAM BALA NIKAM Vs. THAMA BALA NIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a Hindu widow Thama defendant No. 1 passed two deeds of gift, viz., (1) on September 23, 1918, Exhibit 23, in favour of Rama, and (2) on August 20, 1921, Exhibit 20, in favour of her own daughter and roversioner Sau, defendant No. 2. Then on January 22, 1922, she Adopted the plaintiff. The present contest is between the daughter Sau claiming under the deed of gift of August 1921, Exhibit 20, and the plaintiff, the adopted son. The trial Court decided in favour of the adopted son. The lower appellate Court decided in favour of the daughter. The adopted son appeals.

(2.) The daughter bases her claim on this that there was a valid surrender by the deed of August 1921 of the mother's life interest in favour of the daughter and reversioner, whereby the reversion became accelerated and the life interest of the widow extinguished. On the other hand it is contended by the adopted son that the widow could not in August 1921 pass her whole interest in the property because she had already purported to convey it to Rame by the earlier deed of gift of 1918.,

(3.) The question, therefore, becomes one of law as to what are the essential conditions to enable a Hindu widow effectually to surrender her interest to the reversioner. Now fortunately their Lordships of the Privy Council have laid down the essentials to such a surrender in Rangasami Gounden V/s. Nachiappa Gounden (1918) L.R. 46 I.A. 72, s.c. 21 Bom. L.R. 640, where it is stated (p. 84): . The result of the consideration of the decided cases may be summarized thus : (1) An alienation by a widow of her deceased husband's estate held by her may be validated if it can be shown to be a surrender of her whole interest in the whole estate in favour of the nearest reversioner or reversioners at the time of the alienation. In such circumstances the question of necessity does not fall to be considered. But the surrender must be a bona fide surrender, not a device to divide the estate with the reversioner.