SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(S) (V 44 C 65 May)
(From: A. F. O. D. No. 166 of 1944, D/- 6-6-1950 - Cal.)
29th January 1957
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., BHAGWATI AND S.K. DAS, JJ.
Smt. Kamala Devi and another, Appellants
Versus
Bachulal Gupta and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.158 of 1953.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Ramanugrah Prasad and Mr. Mohan Beharilal, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. H. J. Umrigar and Mr. S. P. Verma, Advocates, for Respondents (Nos. 1 & 2).
– It is the imperative religious duty and a moral obligation of a father, mother or other guardian to give a girl in marriage to a suitable husband; it is the duty which must be fulfilled to prevent degradation, and direct spiritual benefit is conferred upon the father by such a marriage.
It is true that a gift becomes legally effective only when a registered instrument is executed in the manner laid down in this section, which does not deal with nor does it affect the power of a Hindu widow to make an alienation of a reasonable portion of her husband’s estate in favour of the daughter as marriage dowry. That right is governed by Hindu Law and it is open to a widow to make an affectionate gift in favour of her daughter subsequent to the marriage, if the conditions laid down by Hindu Law are fulfilled — See decision in Kamla Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, AIR 1957 SC 434.
Key Points: - It is a religious duty and moral obligation for a father or mother to provide a girl with a suitable husband, which is fulfilled to prevent degradation and confer spiritual benefit (!) (!) . - A Hindu widow has the power to alienate a reasonable portion of her husband's estate in favor of a daughter as marriage dowry, even if executed subsequent to the marriage ceremony (!) (!) . - The lapse of time between the marriage and the execution of the registered deed of gift is immaterial if the gift fulfills an ante-nuptial agreement or moral obligation (!) (!) . - Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act requires a registered instrument for a gift to be legally effective but does not affect the widow's power under Hindu Law to make such alienations (!) (!) . - The gift in question was held valid and binding on the reversioners because it was of a reasonable portion of the estate and fulfilled the promise made at the time of marriage negotiations (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Courts below, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents (!) (!) . - The Court found that the finding of the Courts below regarding the ante-nuptial agreement for the gift of four houses was correct and not vitiated by error (!) (!) . - The decision was made on the grounds of Hindu Law prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, rendering it unnecessary to decide the scope of Section 14 of that Act (!) (!) .
Judgement
S. K. DAS. J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated, 6th April 1950, by which the said High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 30th June 1948 in Title Suit No. 2 of 1942. The suit was instituted by the four sons of one Sri Ram Kishori Lal Sao, a resident of Asansol in Bengal, who died in September 1927. 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 defendants were Mst. Sumitra Devi, widow of the late Ram Kishori Lal, (defendant No.1), and Smt. Kamala Devi, daughter of the late Ram Kishori Lal (defendant No. 2). The said defendants, 1 and 2. are the appellants before us.
2. The suit was instituted for a declaration that a deed of gift dated 10th March 1940, executed by Mst. Sumitra Devi in favour of her daughter Smt. Kamala Devi, was void and inoperative beyond the lifetime of Mst. Sumitra Devi and was not binding on the reversion. The following genealogical table shows the relation inter se between the parties:
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. Shortly after his death, Sumitra Devi, for herself and as guardian of her two children, Lachmi Narain and Kamala, brought a suit against her stepsons for partition of the properties left by her husband. This suit was registered as Title Suit No. 664 of 1927 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 22nd July 1933, and a final decree on 29th June 1936. This decree provided for payment of Rs. 10,000 as expenses for the marriage of the minor daughter Kamala, in addition to a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50 per month to her until she was married. Lachmi Narain, it should be noted, died on 1st January 1936. By the final decree, each of the sons obtained one-sixth share of the estate of Ram Kishore Lal. 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 predeceased son. The allotment in favour of Sumitra Devi consisted mostly of house properties, and the four houses of her share with which we are concerned in this litigation were described in a schedule to the plaint and stood on Municipal Holding Nos. 16, 17, 26 and 27 of Circle 4 of the Asansol Municipality. The value of these four houses was found by the Commissioner at the time of partition to be in the neighborhood of Rs. 19,000 only.
3. The marriage of Kamala Devi was settled with one Bijoy Kumar Sao, son of Nand Lal Sao, retired Deputy Postmaster, Patna General, Post Office. The case of the appellant was that the marriage was settled at Deoghar on Shivratriday in 1938 and the plaintiffs, respondents before us, before us, had no concern with the negotiation; it was alleged that the terms of the marriage settlement included a promise by Sumitra Devi of a gift of four houses at Asansol, worth about Rs. 20,000 as marriage dowry for Kamala. The further case of the appellants was that at the time of the marriage itself, which was informed on 10th May 1938, Sumitra Devi made a "sankalpa" of the gift of the houses at Asansol, which was accepted by Nand Lal Sao on behalf of Kamala, and the gift was later confirmed on the occasion If the Dwiragaman (Gowna) ceremony which took place in December 1938,and possession of the houses was also given to her; soon after the marriage however, Sumitra Devi fell ill and the deed of gift was actually executed and registered on 10th March 1940, some two years after the marriage. This was the deed of gift which was impugned by the plaintiffs respondents.
4. The case of the plaintiffs respondents was that the marriage negotiation
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.