The legal effectiveness of a gift-deed under Hindu Law and the consideration for relinquishment of property rights.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. The suit out of which Second Appeal No. 2229 arose was brought on a mortgage document executed in the plaintiffs favour by the defendants land 2 on the 13th February 1905. The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant. The lower appellate Court finds (a) that the 2nd defendant was a minor when the 1st defendant induced him to join the 1st defendant in executing the mortgage document; (b) that the mortgaged property belonged solely to the son, the 2nd defendant, on the date of the mortgage deed in 1905 as it had been gifted away by the father, the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant under the registered gift-deed, Exhibit IV, dated 1892; and (c) that the money which formed the consideration for the mortgage Exhibit A was not borrowed for the benefit of the 2nd defendant.

2. On these findings the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with the 2nd defendants costs so far as it prayed for the sale of the mortgaged property though there was a personal decree passed against the 1st defendant.

3. The only contention argued in this second appeal is that the gift-deed, dated 1892 by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was not legally effective to transfer the 1st defendants undivided half share in the plaint properties to his only son, the 2nd defendant, and that therefore the mortgage under Ex. A affected at least the 1st defendants said undivided half share and that a decree ought to have been passed by the lower Courts for the sale of the said moiety. One of the grounds on which the gift-deed is attacked is that the gift was not accepted by anybody on behalf of the 2nd defendant. The district Judge clearly finds that the defendants witness No. 2 accepted the deed on be (sic) of the 2nd defendant and that he subsequently handed the dcument over to the 2nd defendants mother. This finding is supported by the evidence of the said 2nd witness which proves that he acted as the agent of the 2nd defendants mother and received the gift-deed from the 1st defendant on her behalf. This indicates her acceptance of the gift-deed on behalf of the 2nd defendant. The only other ground on which the gift-deed is attacked is that under the Hindu Law, an undivided co-parcener cannot validly make a gift of his share in the property so as to be binding even on himself. For this proposition reliance is placed on certain observations in Appa v. Ranga (1882) I.L.R. 6 M 71. In that case it was held on the facts appearing there in that plaintiff, a member of an undivided Hindu family, got no consideration for the agreement by which he relinquished his rights in the family property in favour of the remaining co-parceners, that his release therefore having been by an agreement without consideration was not binding upon him and that he was, notwithstanding the agreement, entitled to sue for his share in the family properties. Thus the decision turned on the sole ground that there was no consideration for the relinquishment agreement relied upon by the defence. In that same case, it is observed that if the relinquishment was. in favour of persons who stood in such a relationship with the executant that natural love and affection was evidently the motive of the transaction. (See Section 25 of the Contract Act) the relinquishment would be valid. The learned Judges in that particular case held however that the terms of the document clearly showed that natural love and affection was not the motive for the relinquishment and that therefore there was not even the consideration of natural love and affection and hence, the agreement was not valid. In the present case, the gift is made by a father to his only son and the circumstances clearly show that if the gift deed is treated as an agreement by which the father relinquished his rights in favour of his son, it would be a valid agreement supported by the consideration of natural love. It was then argued that the case in Appa v. Ranga (1882) I.L.R.