SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1938 Supreme(Mad) 243

KRISHNASWAMI AYYANGAR
Boda Viraraju – Appellant
Versus
Vetcha Venkataratnam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.

1. We have found very little difficulty either in the ascertainment of the true principle of law or in the application of it to the facts disclosed in this appeal. Whether and to what extent a Hindu widow in possession of her husbands estate can make a gift in favour of a dependant relation or for objects considered meritorious by the Hindu religion was the question discussed before us at the hearing of this appeal. It is unnecessary for a decision of this question to carry a research into the ancient texts of Hindu Law, or indeed to do anything more than refer to two decisions of the Privy Council in which the principle has, if we may say so with respect, been clearly and precisely defined. As early as 1861 it was Laid down in The Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata Narrainapah (1861) 8 M.I.A. 529 where their Lordships observed that:

For religious and charitable purposes or those which are supposed to conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband she (the widow) 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.

2. The principle received








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top