A property purchased by a wife with money gifted to her by her husband cannot be considered a gift from the husband under Section 10(2)(b) of the Mysore Hindu Women's Rights Act, 1933, as the gift contemplated by the provision must be a gift of the very property in specie made by the husband or other relations therein mentioned.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: (for himself, K.Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchoo and N. Rajago pala Ayyangar JJ.)

This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant Kanakarathanammal in the Court of the IInd Additional District judge, Bangalore (O. S. No. 39 of 1947-48) in which she claimed to recover possession of the properties described in the schedules attached to the plaint. Schedules 1 and 2 consist of movable and immovable properties, while schedule 3 refers to jewels and silverware. The appellant laid a claim to these properties as the sole heir of her mother Rajambal who died on September 13, 1946. Her case was that she was entitled to these properties exclusively under sub-clause (i) of Clause (1) of section 12 of the Mysore Hindu Law Women s Right Act 1933 (No. X of 1933) (hereinafter called the Act). A gold before which is an item of jewellery was described by her in schedule 4 and the same was claimed by her on the ground that it had been presented to her by her father before he died on March 20, 1947.

2. The case set out in the plaint showed that according to the appellant the properties in schedules 1, 2 and 3 belonged exclusively to her mother and when she made a claim against the respondents in that behalf, they challenged her title. In connection, the appellant relied on the fact that a sale- deed had been executed in favour of her mother on April 1, 1942 for a consideration of Rs. 28,000/by Mr. Gibbs under which several pieces of land together with all buildings and erections standing thereon and movable property consisting of articles of furniture and other things set out in the Schedules attached to the sale-deed (Exbt. F), were covered.

3. Respondent No. 1 Loganatha Mudliar alleged that on February 17, 1947, the father of the appellant had executed a will under which he had been appointed an executor and that as such executor, he obtained a probate under the said will, got possession of the properties and handed them over to Respondent No. 2 Mudaliar Sangham, by its President, as directed under the will. Respondents 1 and 2 thus set up a title in respect of the suit properties in the appellant s father. Alternatively, they urged that even if the property belonged to the appellants mother, she would not be entitled to claim exclusive title to it, because by succession the said property would devolve upon the appellant and her brothers; and the appellants failure to join her brothers made the suit incompetent for non-joinder of necessary parses. The third respondent, Vasudeva setty and sons, admitted that he was in possession of the gold belt described in schedule 4, but urged that the appellants father had given it to him for purpose of sale and that a sum of Rs. 109-7-9 was due to him. He pleaded that he had no objection to hand it over to the rightful claimant, provided the amount due to him was repaid to him.

4. On these pleadings, the trial Court framed six substantive issues, three of which were important. These three issues were :(1) whether the appellant s father or mother was the real owner of the property described in Schedules 1 and 2; (2) whether the will set up by respondents 1 and 2 was genuine and valid in law; and (3) whether the suit was not maintainable on the ground that necessary parties had not been joined by the appellant. The learned trial Judge held that the appellant s mother was the owner of the property described in Sch. 1. Regarding the movable property the trial Judge held with some variation that the items admitted by the respondents also belonged to the appellant. As regards the jewels, he found that they had never gone into the possession of respondents 1 and 2, and so, the appellant s claim in respect of the said jewels was rejected. As to the gold belt mentioned in Sch. 4, the decision of the trial Court was that the appellant should recover the same from respondent No. 3 on her paying to him Rs. 109 and odd claimed by him. Having found the title of the appellant s mother proved, the t