Skip to content


Karuppan Goundan Vs. Mudali Goundan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1922)43MLJ36
AppellantKaruppan Goundan
RespondentMudali Goundan and ors.
Cases ReferredBhagwat Koer v. Dhanukhadri Prashad Singh I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....of all the properties she was in possession of as widow and that she got a sum of rs. 500 and land yielding about rs. 25 a year absolutely for her maintenance. there is nothing in the evidence to show that the transaction evidenced by exs. i and ii was a device by the widow to get an absolute estate in a portion of her husband's property. it is in evidence that she would require at least rs. 4 a month for her maintenance and that the land she got would yield about rs. 25 a year. the interest on the sum of rs. 500 and the yield of the land would hardly be sufficient for her maintenance. having regard to the extent of the lands surrendered by her and the yield, it is difficult to see why he should have entered into the transaction evidenced by exs. i and ii if her object was not bona.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that Exs. I and II and the evidence in the case show that there was a surrender by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant of all the properties she was in possession of as widow and that she got a sum of Rs. 500 and land yielding about Rs. 25 a year absolutely for her maintenance. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the transaction evidenced by Exs. I and II was a device by the widow to get an absolute estate in a portion of her husband's property. It is in evidence that she would require at least Rs. 4 a month for her maintenance and that the land she got would yield about Rs. 25 a year. The interest on the sum of Rs. 500 and the yield of the land would hardly be sufficient for her maintenance. Having regard to the extent of the lands surrendered by her and the yield, it is difficult to see why he should have entered into the transaction evidenced by Exs. I and II if her object was not bona fide.

2. The next question is whether the fact that she got an absolute estate in the land which she got for her maintenance and in Rs. 500 given to her would render the surrender invalid. In the case of widows entitled to maintenance it is open to them to get properties absolutely in lieu of their claim and there is no reason why a surrender by a widow should be invalid where she bargains for an absolute estate in a portion of an estate for her maintenance so long as the lands allotted to her for maintenance are not in excess of her requirements for maintenance and the transaction is otherwise fair. No authority is cited for the view that the reservation for maintenance which would under the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagwat Koer v. Dhanukhadri Prashad Singh I.L.R. (1920) Call. 66 be valid should be only of a life estate.

3. We are of opinion that there was a valid surrender by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant who is the father of the plaintiffs and that the suit by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.

4. We reverse the decrees of the Lower Court and dismiss plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.


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