Skip to content


Sridhara Rao Vs. Kudkoli Srinivasa Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad81; 147Ind.Cas.936
AppellantSridhara Rao
RespondentKudkoli Srinivasa Rao and anr.
Cases ReferredIn Ponnuswami v. Thatha
Excerpt:
- .....gift by a father in favour of the daughter at the time of, or even after, her marriage, and gifts by a brother in favour of his sister, in suoh circumstances, have all been upheld by deoisions according to hindu law. these decisions are based on the interpretation of texts but no text has been brought to my notice in support of the appellant's contention in these oases. in ponnuswami v. thatha (1886) 9 mad 273, a gift of im-moveable property made by a donor in favour of his grandson was successfully questioned by the donor's brother. acceptance of the learned counsel's argument would mean an extension of hindu law not warranted by any text or decision, however much the circumstances may show that the gift should be upheld. in these circumstances these second appeals must be.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The question of law that arises for decision in all these five cases is:

Whether a grandfather can make a gift of ancestral property (in these oases the gift is money with which mortgages were taken) in favour of his grandson, i.e. daughter's son.

2. Reasonable gift by a father in favour of the daughter at the time of, or even after, her marriage, and gifts by a brother in favour of his sister, in suoh circumstances, have all been upheld by deoisions according to Hindu law. These decisions are based on the interpretation of texts but no text has been brought to my notice in support of the appellant's contention in these oases. In Ponnuswami v. Thatha (1886) 9 Mad 273, a gift of im-moveable property made by a donor in favour of his grandson was successfully questioned by the donor's brother. Acceptance of the learned Counsel's argument would mean an extension of Hindu law not warranted by any text or decision, however much the circumstances may show that the gift should be upheld. In these circumstances these second appeals must be dismissed. For his costs respondent 1 will get counsel's fee in S.A. No. 1035 of 1929 and the total printing charges in all the second appeals together with the costs of the vakalaths filed by him.


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