Skip to content


Bai Gulab Vs. Thakorelal Pranjivandas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR36Bom622
AppellantBai Gulab
RespondentThakorelal Pranjivandas
Excerpt:
hindu law - minor--capacity to make will--indian majority act (ix of 1875), section 3. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5).....narayan chandavarkar, a.c.j.1. the question in this appeal is whether a hindu minor is competent to make a will. the right of a hindu to make a will is based upon the principle that he is competent to make a disposition of his property to take effect after his death to the same extent to which he can make a disposition of it in his own life-time as a gift. it is clear law that a hindu minor cannot make a gift of his property in his life-time. if that is so, it follows that he cannot make a will in respect of that property.2. but it is argued in the present case that though the testatrix, having been under eighteen years of age, was a minor according to the indian majority act, she was more than fourteen years' old and that, therefore, under the hindu law she was not a minor. on that.....
Judgment:

Narayan Chandavarkar, A.C.J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether a Hindu minor is competent to make a will. The right of a Hindu to make a will is based upon the principle that he is competent to make a disposition of his property to take effect after his death to the same extent to which he can make a disposition of it in his own life-time as a gift. It is clear law that a Hindu minor cannot make a gift of his property in his life-time. If that is so, it follows that he cannot make a will in respect of that property.

2. But it is argued in the present case that though the testatrix, having been under eighteen years of age, was a minor according to the Indian Majority Act, she was more than fourteen years' old and that, therefore, under the Hindu Law she was not a minor. On that ground we are asked to hold that, according to that law, she was competent to make a will.

3. But the Indian Majority Act has modified the Hindu Law on the question of minority except in respect of dower, divorce, marriage and adoption.

4. It is argued, however, by Mr. Shah for the appellant that the Indian Majority Act has not affected the rule of Hindu Law on the question of minority so far as the competency of a Hindu to make a gift inter vivos is concerned. That argument is clearly unsustainable. It is true the Legislature has not modified the Hindu Law so far as the competency of a Hindu to make a gift or a will is concerned, but the Legislature has laid down what the age of majority shall be for the purposes of that competency. The Hindu law having been repealed to that extent, the law now is that no Hindu can make a will who is less than eighteen years of age.

5. This is in accordance with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Harduari Lal v. Gomi (1911) 8 All. L.J. 385 We must confirm the order with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //