Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 42
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD PHILLIMORE, LORD CARSON, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
SARDAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
KUNJ BEHARI LAL - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Allahabad.
Decided On : June 30, 1922.
Solicitor for appellants: H. S. L. Polak.
Solicitors for first respondent: T. L. Wilson & Co.
A Hindu widow holding a limited estate may validly alienate a small portion of the property for optional pious purposes to benefit the deceased's soul, provided the alienation is reasonable and proper, regardless of whether she has sufficient income to cover the expenses.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Power of a Hindu widow holding a limited estate to alienate property for religious purposes - Distinction between indispensable duties (nitya-karma) and optional religious acts (kamya-karma) - For indispensable duties, a widow may alienate as much as required, including the whole property, if income is insufficient - For optional pious acts, she may alienate a small portion of the estate without the consent of reversioners, provided the disposition is reasonable and proper according to common notions of the faith - No requirement to exhaust income before alienating a small fraction of the corpus for spiritual benefit.
(B) Alienation for religious purposes - A gift of a small fraction of the property for the continuous spiritual benefit of the deceased owner is valid and cannot be impeached by the reversioner if the purpose is recognized as pious.
Facts of the case:
A Hindu widow, holding a limited estate, gifted a small portion (approximately one-seventy-fifth) of the property to a temple for the purpose of providing food offerings to a deity and maintaining priests, following a vow made during a pilgrimage. The reversionary heir challenged the validity of the gift, contending that the purpose was not an essential religious duty and that the widow possessed sufficient income to meet the expenses without alienating the corpus of the estate.
Findings of Court:
The alienation was for a pious purpose, although not an obligatory one. Given that the property gifted constituted a very small fraction of the total estate and the act was in accordance with religious sentiment, the alienation was within the widow's powers.
Issues: Whether a Hindu widow holding a limited estate is competent to alienate a small portion of the property for optional pious purposes without proving necessity or exhausting the income of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between obligatory obsequial rites and optional pious acts. While the former allows for wider powers of alienation based on necessity, the latter permits the alienation of a small portion of the property for spiritual benefit, provided the expenditure is reasonable and proper. The widow is not required to exhaust the income of the estate before making such a limited alienation for a permanent spiritual benefit.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
women's property rights
- limited estate
-
women's property rights
-
hindu law
-
property law
-
alienation
- religious endowments
-
alienation
Judgement
Appeal (No. 58 of 1921) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (June 6, 1918) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad (August 23, 1915).
The suit was brought by Laltu Singh, the predecessor of the present appellants, to recover possession of certain immovable property which had formed part of the estate of Raja Gur Sahai, deceased, whose reversionary heir the plaintiff claimed to be. In 1876 the Rajas widow, while in possession of his estate, had made a gift of the property in suit to the temple of Jagannath at Puri, by a deed which is set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The gift was made in performance of a vow made by the widow on a pilgrimage to Puri, and was for bhog (food offerings) to the deity, and for the maintenance of the priests in charge. It was found that the property represented about one-seventy-fifth of the whole estate, which produced an annual income of Rs. 60,000. The temple authorities had sold the land to the first respondent; the second respondent (defendant) was a lessee from him.
The Subordinate Judge made a decree for possession and mesne profits. He based his judgment on the view that the purpose of the gift was not the performance of any religious duty which was essential, and that the donor had sufficient income out of which to make the gift.
On appeal to the High Court the learned judges (Piggott and Walsh JJ.), after a consideration of the authorities, reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. The appeal is reported at I. L. R. 41 A. 130.
1922. May 11, 12. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellants. The alienation was invalid. The property in the possession of the Rani produced a large income, amply sufficient to provide for the observances referred to in the deed. That being the case she was not entitled to alienate any part of the corpus of the property, even if the observances provided for had been of an obligatory or essential character. But the observances, though such as are recognized as proper, were not of an essential character, like the obsequial ceremonies. Further, the deed stated that they were provided not only for the benefit of the deceased, but also for that of his family and of the widow herself. A general review of the authorities shows that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was in substance correct. So far as the cases lay down any general rule, they do not exclude proof of necessity to validate this alienation ; if any of the cases appear to do so, the view so expressed is not in accordance with the general body of authority. [Reference was made to the following cases, here given in order of date Cossinaut Bysack v. Hurroosoondry Dossee (( 1819) 2 Morleys Digest, 197.); Ram Chunder Surma v. Gungagovind ((1826) 4 Mac. Sel. Rep. 147.); Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata Narrainapah (( 1861) 8 Moo. I. A. 529.); Kartick Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Gout Mohun Roy (( 1864) 1 Suth. W. R. 48.); Huro Mohun Audhiharee v. Auluk Monee Dassee (( 1864) 1 Suth.
W. R. 252.); Raj Chunder Deb Biswas v. Sheeshoo Ram Deb (( 1867) 7 Suth. W. R. 146.); Raj Iukhee Dabea v. Gokool Chunder (( 1879) 13 Moo. I. A. 209.); Mahomed Ashruf v. Brijessuree Dassee (( 1873) 19 Suth. W. R. 426.); Muteeram Kowar v. Gopal Sahoo (( 1873) 20 Suth. W. R. 187.); Runjeet Ram Koolal v. Mahomed Warts (( 1873) 21 Suth. W. R. 49.); Puran Dai v. Jai Narain (( 1882) I. L. R. 4 A. 482.); Rama v. Ranga (( 1885) I. L. R. 8 M. 552.); Lakshminarayana v. Dasu (( 1887) I. L. R. 11M. 288.); Ram Kawal Singh v. Ram Kishore Das (( 1895) I. L. R. 22 C. 506.); Churaman Sahu v. Gopi Sahu (( 1909) I. L. R. 37 C. 1.); Vuppuluri Tattaya v. Garimilla Ramakrishnamma (15) ; Khub Lal Singh v. Ajodhya Misser (16); also to Macnaghtens Hindu Law ( 1874 ed.), p. 211 ; and Sarkars Vyavashtha Chandrika, vol. i., paras. 105, 106.]
Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the first respondent. The amount of the gift being small in relation to the whole property, the alienation was
