The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Hindu father has the moral obligation to make a gift of a reasonable portion of the family property to his daughters, and such a gift is binding on the joint family members. The reasonableness of the gift is judged based on the family's circumstances, the extent of the family property, and the family's obligations.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question raised in these second appeals is as regards the power of a father to make a gift of a portion of joint family Immovable property in favour of his daughter or daughters daughter. The plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 1185, 1187 and 1188 of 1926, out of which second appeals 217, 220 and 218 respectively arise, are the sisters of the second defendant, and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1186 of 1926 is the daughter of another sister of the second defendant. The second defendant is the son of one Gavani Ramaswami. The said Ramaswami and his son Gopala Rao and the second defendant were members of an undivided Hindu family. On the 26th August, 1925, the said Ramaswami executed 4 deeds of gift in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suits giving them each about 2 acres of wet land and put them in possession of the same. The first defendant is a creditor who obtained a decree against the second defendant in O.S. No. 373 of 1925 on the file of the Additional District Munsifs Court, Tenali. He filed the said suit on the 18th of June, 1925, and applied for an order of attachment before judgment of the second defendants share in the joint family property. But the attachment was not effected till 19th September, 1925. In the meanwhile the said gift deeds were executed and subsequently a deed of partition was also executed on the 1st of September, 1925. The plaintiffs preferred their claims on the strength of the said gift deeds, but the said claims were disallowed, and thereupon the present suits were filed for a declaration of their rights under the said gift deeds. Both the lower Courts have declared that the gift deeds in question are not binding in so far as the second defendants share is concerned. It may be mentioned that the second defendant was also adjudicated insolvent on the 5th December, 1925. The lower Courts also found that both on the date of the gift deeds and or the date of partition the second defendant was heavily indebted and his share of the Joint family property would not be enough to liquidate all his debts in full. It was also found that subsequent to the partition the father obtained a sale of a portion of the property allotted to the second defendants share in consideration of discharge of the second defendants share of the family debts. It was also found that the joint family was possessed of 40 acres of wet lands and 20 acres of dry lands besides house property. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the gifts made by the father of 8 acres of wet lands were not out of proportion to the total extent of the family property, and the gift deeds were not nominal transactions. But nevertheless he held that having regard to the fact of indebtedness of the son and the knowledge of the father of such indebtedness and that the transactions were brought about in view of the impending insolvency of the son, the gifts must be held to offend against the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act as the necessary result of such gifts would be to reduce a portion of the poperty from the sons share and prevent it from being available to his creditors.

2. It is contended by Mr. Lakshmanna that the view of the learned District Judge in applying Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is not sound. I am inclined to agree with his contention. Section 53 of the Transfer of property Act has no application to the facts of this case. There is no transfer by the 2nd defendant. The gift deeds were by the father of the 2nd defendant as the father and manager of the joint family. Therefore the validity of the said gifts has to be judged according to the principles of Hindu Law. There can be no doubt that the father is under a moral obligation to make a gift of a reasonable portion of the family property as a marriage portion to his daughters on the occasion of their marriages. It has also been held that it is a continuing obligation till it is discharged by fulfilment thereof. It is on t