Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.
1. This is a suit brought by a daughter against her parents for recovery of certain properties which she alleged were left in her parents' possession when she left their house. The plaintiff married her own uncle, Sankariah, who died in 1908. In 1908, her father-in-law K. Subbiah, who was also her grandfather, made a gift in her favour of certain properties to be enjoyed during her lifetime. In September, 1917, after she became a widow, she ran away to Rajahmundry to the Widow's Home of Rao Bahadur M. R. Ry., Viresalingam Pantulu and got married to her second husband K. Singaracharlu. As her parents retained her property after her re-marriage she gave them a Lawyer's notice, to which they replied denying that they had any Stridhanam property belonging to her, and she thereupon filed this suit.
2. The Subordinate Judge's decree is attacked on the ground that it has not been satisfactorily proved that she left the jewels which she now claims in her parents' possession, that as regards the clothes, she did not specifically mention them in her plaint, and, as regards the immoveable property, that the gift must have been made with an implied intention that, upon remarriage, the property should revert to the family. The Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a decree for certain of the jewels which he has found to have been left in the defendant's possession and has disallowed her claim for certain other jewels. On the whole, there is no good reason for disturbing his finding as to the jewels. Some doubt has arisen in respect of her claim for a gold kante of weight 18 Tolas and value Rs. 540. In her plaint, the plaintiff alleged that all the jewels claimed in Schedule A had been left in the possession of the defendants. It came out in her evidence that she gave a pair of Kappulu and thodulu to her father to be made into a kante and that he had not given her the kante which he promised. Her mother was examined as defence 9th witness and she denied that her daughter left any jewels and said that she took away the jewels with her when she ran away. She said on the contrary that she saw the kappulu and golusulu in her pos-session at the Ranichatram where she met her daughter after her remarriage. There is very little independent evidence on this subject. A witness was examined to say that she was hot wearing these jewels when she arrived at Rajahmundry, and the photographs taken after her remarriage are also evidence of this fact that she did not wear them after she reached Rajah-mundry. Her father, defence tenth witness, denied that his daughter left any jewels with him or his wife. He was not asked specifically whether he took any jewels to make a kante, but it is not likely that he would have admitted it after having in chief-examination denied that any jewels were left with him. That is all the evidence. D. W. 9 says that her daughter went away with her jewels. The photographs show that she was not wearing the kappulu and thodulu after her remarriage. On the whole, there is no reason to disallow her claim for the value of the kante of 18 tolas, which corresponds in weight to the kapulu and thodulu, that she says she gave to her father.
3. As regards the clothing she enumerated the cloths that she claimed in the schedule to the plaint. No evidence was adduced to prove their value, but her mother, as D. W. 9 said that the cloths given her at her first wedding had become worn out by use. There is no evidence that she left behind cloths of so much value as Rs. 240 as claimed in the plaint. We disallow this item.
4. As regards the immoveable property, Section 2 of Act XV of 1856, (the Hindu Widow's Re-marriage Act), provides that, upon re-marriage all rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husband's property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance, or by will or testamentary disposition, shall cease and determine upon her re-marriage. But the immoveable property concerned in this case was gifted to her by her father-in-law and was not obtained in the manner referred to in this section. We have been asked to interpret the gift deed (Ex. C.) as implying that the property was given to her for her use during her widowhood. There is no reason why, when the document states that the donee is to enjoy during her life time, we should limit the enjoyment to such part of her life as she remained unmarried, when there are no words to that effect. As re-marriage of widows is an exceptional event, it is not likely that the donor would have contemplated his daughter-in-law re-marrying. The case of Mahammad Umar v. Must. Man Kuar 21 CWN 906 was a case, not of gift, but of an agreement for the settlement of family difference in which the learned Judges were inclined to presume that there was no intention that the plaintiff should have a right of residence in a certain house belonging to her deceased husband if and when she became remarried. The inference that was drawn in that case as to the intention of the parties to that particular document is not of much assistance to us in interpreting the present gift deed which contains no words to suggest that the life interest of the plaintiff was to be limited on the happening of any future event.
5. The lower Court's decree will, therefore, be confirmed in respect of the amount decreed therein for jewels and as regards the order for delivery of possession of the immoveable properties and for account of rents and profits, but deducting Rs. 240 on account of cloths from the amount decreed in respect of moveable properties. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout, including the costs, of printing.
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
6. I agree with my Lord and I have nothing more to add.