1922 (3) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of gifts made by Lakshmivaraha to the fourth defendant, Ponnu Ammal
2. Allotment of funds for marriages of plaintiffs
3. Ownership of properties in Schedules XI and XIII
4. Division of land allotted to the widow of Subramania Annavi
5. Allocation of costs among the parties

Analysis:

1. Validity of gifts made by Lakshmivaraha to the fourth defendant, Ponnu Ammal:
The judgment addressed two gifts made by Lakshmivaraha to Ponnu Ammal, totaling Rs. 8,000. The court discussed the power of a father under Hindu law to make gifts of movable property to a daughter within reasonable limits. Both lower courts in India found the gifts reasonable, and the High Court agreed. The Supreme Court saw no reason to disagree with this assessment, upholding the validity of the gifts.

2. Allotment of funds for marriages of plaintiffs:
The High Court disallowed the claim for Rs. 2,000 for the marriages of plaintiffs 2 and 3, except for the marriage expenses that occurred before the decree in the first court. This decision was based on the belief that joint family status existed until the partition decree, contrary to the law under Mitakshara. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing a clear intention of separation by plaintiff Narayana, relieving the joint family from obligations regarding his sons' marriages.

3. Ownership of properties in Schedules XI and XIII:
Insufficient evidence was available to determine if properties in Schedules XI and XIII belonged to the joint family or the plaintiffs exclusively. The Supreme Court left this decision to the first court, suggesting an amicable settlement between the parties.

4. Division of land allotted to the widow of Subramania Annavi:
Upon the widow's death, the land allocated to her was to be divided among the male heirs of her husband, the family members involved in the case. The Subordinate Judge's declaration on this matter was to be adjusted accordingly.

5. Allocation of costs among the parties:
The High Court's decision to have each party bear their own costs was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the plaintiffs were directed to pay the costs of defendants 1, 6, and 4. Defendants 1 and 6, who contested defendant 2's share in the joint family properties, were to cover his costs. The plaintiffs' cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court advised setting aside the High Court's decree and restoring the Subordinate Judge's decree, with adjustments related to the division of the land allotted to the widow of Subramania Annavi and the allocation of costs among the parties.