The judgment established the distinction between moral and legal rights to maintenance, emphasizing the impact of inheritance on the widow's legal right and the absolute right of a Hindu to dispose of his self-acquired property.

1. This appeal raises an important question, regarding the right of maintenance. The respondent is the widow of one of the sons of one Surayya. Her husband died in 1920. In 1923 Surayya became a Sanyasi after executing and registering a document described as a will (Ex. IV-C). In that will he bequeathed his self-acquired properties to his grandsons (defendants 3 and 4 in the suit) who are respectively the sons of Surayyas two other sons (defendant 1 and defendant 2). Surayya handed over his properties to his grandsons, and thereafter disappeared out of their lives. In 1926 the respondent sued the four defendants for maintenance and in both of the Courts below she has obtained a decree for maintenance against defendants 3 and 4, which is also charged upon the property acquired by them under Ex. IV-C. Defendants 3 and 4 have now filed this second appeal, and in our opinion the appeal must succeed.

2. The construction of Ex. IV-A need not delay us long. Though it appears to have been treated throughout the trial and the first appeal as a will which spoke from the day on which Surayya renounced his civil rights, we think it should be more properly styled a gift deed which came into effect when possession of the properties was actually given to the appellants but whether it will be a will or a gift deed, we think the principles upon which any rights of the respondent to maintenance are or are not affected by it are the same.

3. We begin the discussion of the question before us by enunciating two propositions of law which are well established and have not been contested.

(i) A widowed daughter-in-law has no legal right to maintenance from her father-in-law out of his self-acquired property but only what is called a moral right, and

(ii) But if on her father-in-laws death that property descends by inheritance to his heirs her moral right becomes a legal right at the moment of his death, as against them and as against the property which they have so inherited.

4. The point which now arises for determination is:

Does she acquire a similar legal right against the devisee or donee of self-acquired property or against the property itself if it descends not by inheritance but by will or gift.

5. Now in discussing this matter the first thing which strikes us is that the second proposition of law which has been enunciated above is a very startling one, and we immediately ask ourselves the question:

Why should an estate which is unburdened in the hands of one owner become burdened in the hands of a second owner who acquires it from him.

6. This is contrary to all general provisions of law, and it must be due to some peculiarity in the nature of the death of a Hindu and of succession to his property. The answer is given in Janki v. Nand Ram I.L.R.(1888) 11 All. 194 (F.B.) in these words:

An essential element of the sons right of inheritance from his father is the spiritual benefit which in the contemplation of the Hindu Law the son confers upon the soul of his deceased father. Therefore the son inheriting the self acquired property of his father takes that property subject to such moral obligations as are conducive to the spiritual benefit of his father, and that such moral obligations become legal obligations as against the son who holds his fathers property by inheritance.

7. Now it is true, of course, that this may not be the only answer, but throughout the long arguments in this case that was the only answer that the learned advocate for the respondent could give, or that appears in the authorities which he brought to our attention. Let us therefore examine whether this answer can be pressed into service in the case of a will or gift. It seems to us obvious that it cannot. It is impossible to argue that there is anything in the nature of the transference of property by will or by gift which requires that the legatee or donee should take any thought for the spiritual welfare of the testator or donor. The legatee or donee may be a stranger, may