1957 (1) TMI 49 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of Defendant No. 1 to make a gift of the properties beyond her lifetime.
2. Validity of the deed of gift executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2.
3. Whether the gift was collusive and fraudulent.
4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of Defendant No. 1 to Make a Gift of the Properties Beyond Her Lifetime:
The plaintiffs-respondents sought a declaration that the deed of gift executed by Sumitra Devi in favor of Kamala Devi was void and inoperative beyond Sumitra Devi's lifetime. The courts below found that Sumitra Devi had no right to alienate the properties beyond her lifetime as her interest was in the nature of an ordinary maintenance grant. It was held that even if she had a limited right of disposal, she was not competent to execute a deed of gift except for a reasonable portion of the estate at the time of marriage or the Gowna ceremony. The Supreme Court, however, examined the religious and moral obligations under Hindu law and concluded that Sumitra Devi had the competence to make the gift in fulfillment of an ante-nuptial agreement, even if the gift was made two years after the marriage.

2. Validity of the Deed of Gift Executed by Defendant No. 1 in Favor of Defendant No. 2:
The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that the gift was collusive, fraudulent, and without consideration. The courts below found no reliable evidence to support the claim that Sumitra Devi made a "sankalpa" of the gift at the time of the marriage or confirmed it at the Gowna ceremony. However, the High Court accepted the evidence of Rai Saheb Jogendra Nath Roy regarding the ante-nuptial agreement for the gift of four houses. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the gift was neither disproportionate nor unreasonable and was made in fulfillment of a moral obligation.

3. Whether the Gift was Collusive and Fraudulent:
The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that the gift was made under the evil advice of Sumitra Devi's father and son-in-law to deprive them of their rights. The courts below found no reliable evidence to support this allegation. The Supreme Court concurred with this finding, stating that the gift was made in fulfillment of a moral and religious obligation and was valid under Hindu law.

4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The appellants argued that under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Kamala Devi or Sumitra Devi would become the full owner of the properties. The respondents contended that Sumitra Devi had a restricted estate by the partition decree, and thus Section 14(1) did not apply. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide the case based on Section 14, as it had already held that the gift was valid under Hindu law and binding on the reversioners.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. It held that the gift made by Sumitra Devi to Kamala Devi was valid and binding on the reversioners, and the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was dismissed. The appellants were entitled to their costs throughout.