1. We agree with Courts below that the suit is one relating to a trust, and is therefore one over which a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction.
2. It is next urged that the gift is invalid, since it is not one known to the Hindu law as stridhanam and since it lays down a course of descent inconsistent with the descent of stridhanam property. It is admitted that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply, but we are referred to the Tagore case Jatindra Mohan Tagore v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore 9 B.L.R. 377; Chandi Churn Barua v. Sidheswari Debt I.L.R. 16 Cal. 71 and Kristoromoni Dasi v. Narendro Krishna Bahadur I.L.R. 16 Cal 383
3. We are of opinion that although the term stridhanam is used in Exhibit A as describing the gift, it is used in its primary sense of property given to a woman under coverture. We must look to the terms of the instrument to discover the intention of the donor. Though the donor intended that, after the lifetime of his daughter, the property should succeed in the line of sons and grandsons, it cannot be said that such a course of succession is unknown to Hindu law. The words, however, are words of inheritance and not of limitation, and may be used in connection with grants to females as well as to males.
4. Nor again can we hold that the gift is void, because it is in favour of persons not born. The intention of the donor appears to have been not to convey the property to his sons upon trust for his daughter and her descendants for ever, but that the latter should take an absolute interest from the date of his (the donor's) death. The testator, no doubt, intended that the money should not be handed over to Shalakshi at the date of the gift; the capital was out on kanom, and it was provided that, in the event of the kanom being paid off, the money was to be re-invested in the same manner by the donor's sons and with the approval of Shalakshi and her sons. But the donor could not have contemplated that Shalakshi would live for ever, and as the conveyance was absolute to Shalakshi and her sons after the donor's death, the estate must have vested, and plaintiff, as the descendant of the original donees, will be entitled by inheritance to his share. The restrictions on the mode of enjoyment and the power to alienate would be simply inoperative; but they would not avoid the gift.
5. It appears from Exhibit B that when the kanom was paid off, the capital was not re-invested by defendants, but, on the contrary, they spent it and came to an agreement with the plaintiff's family to pay 300 paras of paddy annually to Shalakshi's heirs. The plaintiff is entitled to his share in this income, and on this ground the decrees of the Courts below can be supported.
6. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.