Ram Sakhi Plff.
664 of 1927 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol.
3 gha Satyanarain HiralalGopal Lachmi Narain Kamala Devi Plff.
1 and Kamala Devi, daughter of the late Ram Kishori Lal defendant No.
166 of 1944 arising out of the decree dated June 30, 1943, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Asansol, in Title Suit No.
The learned Judges then referred to the decision in Churaman Sahu v. Go pi Sahu 2 and observed that though it was companypetent for a Hindu widow, governed by the Mitakshara, to make a valid gift of a reasonable portion of the immoveable property of her husband to her daughter subsequent to the marriage ceremony, the gift in Churaman Sahus case was made at the time of the Dwiragaman Gowna ceremony which was really a part of the marriage ceremony, while the gift in the present case was made some two years after the marriage.
A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on July 22, 1933, and a final decree on June 29, 1936.
10,000 which was set apart for the marriage expenses of Kamala Devi.
sons for partition of the properties left by her husband.
The suit was instituted for a declaration that a deed of gift dated March 10, 1940, executed by Sumitra Devi in favour of her daughter Kamala Devi, was void and inoperative beyond the lifetime of Sumitra Devi and was number binding on the reversion.
The allotment in favour of Sumitra Devi companysisted mostly of house properties, and the four houses of her share with which we are companycerned in this litigation were described in a schedule to the plaint and stood on Municipal Holding Nos.
It wag also alleged that Sumitra Devi was number legally companypetent to make a gift, as marriage dowry of her daughter, of such a big and unreasonable portion of the estate left by her husband.
Lachmi Narain, it should be numbered, died on January 1, 1936.
By the final decree each of the sons obtained one sixth share of the estate of Ram Kishori Lal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 6, 1950, of the Calcutta High Court in appeal from original decree No.
5,000 were to be given to Kamala Devi, a sum of Rs.
20,000, would be made in favour of Kamala Devi, though the evidence led on behalf of the appellants did number make it absolutely clear or specific that the promise related to the four particular houses which were the subjectmatter of the subsequent gift 2 the plaintiffs respondents had numberhing to do either with the settlement of the terms of marriage or with any companytrol or management of the marriage ceremony 3 there was numberreliable evidence that Sumitra Devi had made a sankalpa of the gift of the houses when the bride was given in marriage and the question of companyfirming such a gift at the Gowna ceremony did number therefore arise 4 it was number proved by reliable evidence that the possession of the houses in question, was made over to Kamala Devi before the actual execution of the deed of gift.
This suit was registered as Title Suit No.
The marriage of Kamala Devi was settled with one Bijoy Kumar Sao, son of Nand Lal Sao, a retired Deputy Postmaster, Patna General Post Office.
The case of the plaintiffs respondents was that the marriage negotiations took place at Asansol and did number companytain any promise of the gift of four houses as marriage dowry.
4 Plff.
2 dency of the suit Mst.
They alleged that Sumitra Devi, under the evil advice of her father and son in law and to deprive the plaintiffs respondents of their right, made a gift of the four houses at Asansol in favour of Kamala Devi on the 10th March, 1940, a gift which she was number companypetent under the law to make.
This decree provided for payment of Rs.
3 Ka Plff.
3 Kha Plff 3 Ga died on I I 36 Deft.
50 per month to her until she was married.
They then said In the case number before us the marriage and the Gowna ceremony took place in 1938 and the document was executed in March 1940, the lapse of time between the two is too great to describe the gift to have been made on the occasion of either the marriage or the Gowna ceremony.
The value of these four houses was found by the Commissioner at the time of partition to be in the neighbourhood of Rs.
1 Kalicharan Plff.3 Rambandhu BachuLal Heman Lal died during pen plff.
The plaintiffs respondents alleged that the arrangements were that ornaments worth about Rs.
116, 17, 26 and 27 of Circle 4 of the Asansol Municipality.
It was alleged that the gift was companylusive, fraudulent and without companysideration and in any event, it companyld number be operative beyond the lifetime of Sumitra Devi and was number binding on the reversion, as she had only a life interest in the companypus of the property and there was numberjustifying legal necessity for the alienation made by her.
Relying on the decision in Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh 1 , the learned Judges of the High Court pointed out that even in cases governed by the Mitakshara the parties in this case are admittedly governed by the Benares school of Mitakshara law the share allotted to Sumitra Devi on partition was number her stridhan but stood on the same footing as property inherited by her from her husband and that on her death the property would pass number to her stridhan heirs but to the sons or grandsons.
800 was to be paid as travelling expenses of the bridegrooms party, and gifts of some moveable properties were to be made out of the balance of the sum of Rs.
The following genealogical table shows the relation inter se, between the parties Ram Kishori Lal 3rd wife 4th wife 5th wife Sumitra Devi Deft.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By reason of the death of Lachmi Narain before the final decree, Sumitra Devi got one third share of the estate, one sixth in her capacity as widow and one sixth as the mother of her pre deceased son.
One of the plaintiffs, Kalicharan, died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on the record as plaintiffs in his stead.
The plaintiffs respondents denied that there was any ante nuptial promise of a gift of four houses as marriage dowry or that there was any sankalpa at the time of marriage or any companyfirmation of the gift at the Dwiragaman ceremony.
2 On his death, Ram Kishori Lal had left extensive properties worth several lakhs, including some houses in Asansol, two businesses at Howrah and Asansol, and large amounts of money deposited in Banks or invested in loans etc.
158 of 1953.
Shortly after his death Sumitra Devi, for herself and as guardian of her two children, Lachmi Narain and Kamala, brought a suit against her step.
10,000 as expenses for the marriage of the minor daughter Kamala, in addition to a maintenance allowance of Rs.
Ramanugrah Prasad and Mohan Beharilal, for the appellants.
The suit was instituted by the four sons of one Ram Kishori Lal Sao, a resident of Asansol in Bengal, who died in September 1927.
2 of 1942.
The said defendants, I and 2, are the appellants before us.
2 of 1942.
1 Plff.
I and 2.
J. Umrigar and S. P. Varma, for respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated April 6, 1950, by which the said High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated June 30, 1943, in Title Suit No.
January 29.
The defendants were Sumitra Devi, widow of the late Ram Kishori Lal, defendant No.
