Skip to content


Battini Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Jutta Papayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1893)3MLJ205
AppellantBattini Ramaswami and ors.
RespondentJutta Papayya and anr.
Cases ReferredBhujanga v. Ramayamma
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. .....high court in a case reported in 24 w.r 395 mussamut kollany kooer v. luchmee pershad, and it was held that women are not by reason of their sex debarred from taking an absolute estate when such estate appears to have been intended by the testator. in the case of bhujanga v. ramayamma, i. l. r 7 m 387 it was held on the construction of the document that the property was given as stridhanam. in the present case the deed of gift is not produced, nor is it shown that gangamma was a widow when her father gave the property to her. she has left sons surviving her. under these circumstances there is no foundation for the presumption that the donee's sons were intended to be displaced by those of the donor.3. such is not the ordinary intention of a hindu when he makes a gift to his daughter.....
Judgment:

1. It is conceded that Gangamma obtained the land in dispute as a gift from her father some forty years ago and that she was in possession from that time till her death three years ago. The plaintiffs are her son and grandson. Defendants are her brothers and brother's sons. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the land and not the defendants. The contention on appeal is that under Hindu law it must be presumed that a gift to a female is only for her life and reference is made to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram, L. R 2 I. A 7 and Bhujanga v. Ramayamma, I. L, R 7 M 387

2. It is no doubt remarked by the Lords of the Privy Council in L. R 2 I. A 7 that it may be assumed that a Hindu knows that, as a general rule at all events, women do not take absolute estates of inheritance which they are enabled to alienate, and that in construing the will of a Hindu it is not improper to take into consideration what are known to be the ordinary notions and wishes of Hindus with respect to the devolution of property. That case was decided on the construction of the will. The above case was considered by the Calcutta High Court in a case reported in 24 W.R 395 Mussamut Kollany Kooer v. Luchmee Pershad, and it was held that women are not by reason of their sex debarred from taking an absolute estate when such estate appears to have been intended by the testator. In the case of Bhujanga v. Ramayamma, I. L. R 7 M 387 it was held on the construction of the document that the property was given as Stridhanam. In the present case the deed of gift is not produced, nor is it shown that Gangamma was a widow when her father gave the property to her. She has left sons surviving her. Under these circumstances there is no foundation for the presumption that the donee's sons were intended to be displaced by those of the donor.

3. Such is not the ordinary intention of a Hindu when he makes a gift to his daughter under coverture.

4. The presumption relied on by the appellant being inapplicable, we dismiss this appeal with costs.


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