Back
1926 Supreme(Nagpur) 14
NAGPUR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT
Findlay
MT JANKU – Appellant
Versus
ZEBOO – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 276 of 1925
Decided on : 09-02-1926
D T Mangalmoorti, Y V Jakatdar, Advocates
Headnote:
Gifts - Stridhan - The court held that gifts made by the father at the time of marriage constitute stridhan under the applicable law, rejecting the contention that the gifts were not given to the woman herself and finding insufficient evidence to prove a custom that would prevent the property from becoming the stridhan of the bride.
Fact of the Case:
The Judge of the Small Cause Court accepted evidence that the gifts were made to the plaintiff herself, but held that they did not constitute stridhan. The High Court reversed the judgment and issued a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the gifts made by the father at the time of marriage constituted stridhan under the applicable law, and reversed the judgment of the lower Court in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: Contest over whether the gifts made by the father at the time of marriage constituted stridhan, and whether a custom of the community prevented the property from becoming the stridhan of the bride.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that gifts made by the father at the time of marriage constitute stridhan under the applicable law, and found insufficient evidence to prove a custom that would prevent the property from becoming the stridhan of the bride.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree appealed against were reversed, and a decree for Rs. 152 was issued in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant was also ordered to bear the plaintiff's costs in the lower Court on the sum now decreed, and other costs in the lower Court were to be borne by the parties incurring them. The non-applicant was also ordered to bear the applicant's costs in the High Court.
Findlay—The facts of this case are sufficiently clear from the lower Court's judgment. I may at once clear away one contention which has been raised on behalf of the defendant-non-applicant. That contention was to the effect that the Judge of the Small Cause. Court had not given a finding that the articles given by her father were given to his daughter, the plaintiff-applicant, rather than to her husband or the latter's family. The finding of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of his judgment, seems to me perfectly clear on this point. He accepted the evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff as compared with that produced on behalf of the defendant, and that evidence was to the effect that it was to the plaintiff herself that the gifts were made. As is, moreover, perfectly clear from paragraph 10 of the lower Court's judgment, the Judge decided the case against the plaintiff on the assumption that the gifts had been made to her, but even so he held that they did not constitute the stridhan.
2. For my own part, it seems to me perfectly clear, cf: Muthukaruppa Pillai v. Sellathammal, 1916 39 ILR(Mad) 298 and Mayne's Hindu Law, 9th edition, paragraph 662, that gifts made by the father, presumably out of affection at the time of the marriage as the present gifts were made, under the law applicable, constitute stridhan. This proposition, indeed, was not seriously disputed on behalf of the non-applicant, whose case, as I have already shown, rested largely on the impossible contention that the Judge of the Small Cause court did not find that the gifts bad been given to the woman herself.
3. The only other contention urged on behalf of the non-applicant was that a custom of the Kunbi community had been established, which would show that the property in question did not become the stridhan of the bride. Reference has been made in this connexion to the decisions in Chiman Lal v. Hari Chand,1913 40 ILR(Cal) 379 and Rup Chand v. Jambu Prasad,1910 32 ILR(All) 247 as to the quantum of evidence necessary to prove such a custom; and it has been suggested that in the present instance such evidence was sufficiently forthcoming. I have examined the evidence on record and it seems to me quite insufficient to afford any basis for the proof of any such custom.
4. The judgment and decree appealed against are accordingly reversed and a decree for Rs. 152 will issue in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. The latter will also bear the plaintiff's costs in the lower Court on the sum now decreed. Other costs in the lower Court will be borne by the parties incurring them. The non-applicant will also bear the applicant's costs in this Court.
