The judgment established the principle that acts considered pious and meritorious in Hindu law, such as the creation of temples and gifts for religious worship, are valid and within the competence of a Hindu widow.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal relates to the validity of a gift made by a Hindu widow in favour of an idol. One Balaki Subba Rao died in or about 1870 leaving him surviving his widow Balaki Mahalak-shmamma and certain immovable property. The gift relates to 6 acres out of 12 acres of dry lands left by him. The said Mahalak-shamma built a temple at Itikampadu, hamlet of Naduri village, installed an idol there called Kasi Visveswaraswami and constituted herself the Dharmakartha and at the time of the installation gifted 7 acres 98 cents of land, part thereof being 6 acres out of the land left by her husband, and 1 acre 98 cents which according to the deed of gift belonged to her. The gift was evidenced by a registered deed bearing date May 26, 1915. The deed recited that she built the temple in her little village called Itikampadu "for the salvation of my husband who died issueless and for my attaining salvation after my death." It was alleged in the deed of gift that her husband desired that she should do some charitable act so that he may attain salvation. The relevant portion of the deed of gift is as follows:

I installed the said deity is that temple o Jeshta Suddha 9 of Keelaka. For performing Nithya Naivedya, Deeparadhana (offering of food, light to God daily) and Abhishegam as enjoined in the Vedas for the deity installed by me hitherto and for the Panchayathana, that is Ammavaru and other deities that may be installed hereafter by me or by others; for performing every day or on special occasions Alankarams (decorating the deities with flowers, jewels and clothes), performing in proper times pujas and other upacharamas, Alayasammarjana (sweeping of the (temple), etc., for reciting Dharma-kartatnam in my name and in the name of my family members after my death, reciting daily Mantrapushpam and giving of Rudrapadam for performing these and other acharams, I have gifted away property forming items Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the schedule hereunder so that Sri Swamivtiru (deity) may enjoy them as long as the san and moon last.

2. On the said date she also executed a kararnama in favour of the plaintiff who is an Archaka and enjoined him to do religious duties mentioned in the deed of gift and enjoy the property from son to grandson. This suit is to recover possesion of the said property from a tenant left into possession of the same, but who declined to deliver possession setting up the title of one Prabhala Krishnamurthi, an alleged, reversioner from whom defendant No. 2 purchased the suit property. The gift is impeached on the ground that it was in excess of the powers of a Hindu widow and, therefore, not binding on the reversioner and also that the gift was not reasonable having regard to the extent of property left by the husband. Both the lower Courts have upheld the deed of gift. It was early laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Venkata Narrainappah 8 M.I.A. 500 : 1 Suther 476 : 1 Sar 820 : 2 W.R.P.C. 61 (P.C.), at p. 551 Page of 8 M.I.A.--[Ed.]:

For religious or charitable purposes, or those which are supposed to conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband, she has a larger power of disposition than that which she possesses for purely worldly purposes. To support an alienation for the last she must show necessity.

3. In some of the earlier cases a very narrow view was taken of the purposes which would conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband. It was thought only those acts which areas indispensable in promoting the spiritual welfare entitled her to dispose, of the property. In Kartiek Chunde? Ghukurbutty v. Gour Mohun Roy 1 W.R. 48 it was on that ground the power to make a gift to an idol was negatived. The reason was stated thus:

The fulfillment of the moral and religious duties of the deceased are those by which he is to be raised to bliss, not a dedication by the widow of the nature of that under which the special appellant claims which, und