Skip to content


Pearay Bhugut Vs. Ram NaraIn Sing - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal830
AppellantPearay Bhugut
RespondentRam NaraIn Sing
Cases ReferredSrimati Pabitra Dasi v. Damudar Jana
Excerpt:
hindu law - husband and wife--immoveable property--gift--deed of gift. - .....terms of the grant. looking at the fact that the husband divested himself of all his rights that he prohibited his descendants from claiming the property or its price, we think that the gift was a gift out and out.4. in this view we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Prinsep, J.

1. This case depends upon the proper construction of a deed of grant from a husband to his wife. The document sets forth that it conveys all his rights to the lady without exception; that she shall take possession of his property; that neither he nor his heirs shall at any time have any claim either to the property or to the price or value of it.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant, first, that, unless there are express terms in the grant, such as will convey ordinarily an estate of inheritance, the gift must be taken to be only one lasting for the lifetime of the lady. In support of the contention we have been referred to the case of Koonj Behary Dhur v. Prem Chand Dutt I.L.R. 5 Cal. 684: 5 C.L.R. 561 and, no doubt, if one sentence of that judgment be taken by itself, it would support the contention now raised before us. But when we look at the case as a whole, we find that the learned Judges who expressed that opinion were not content to base their judgment on it, but actually decided upon the terms of the grant. There is also another case of Srimati Pabitra Dasi v. Damudar Jana 7 B.L.R. 697 which does not coincide with the expression of opinion in the case to which we have already referred. It seems to us that that statement made by the learned Judges is not binding upon us as a judicial decision, and is inconsistent with the case referred to of Srimati Pabitra Dasi v. Damudar Jana 7 B.L.R. 697.

3. We are, therefore, of opinion that this should be decided upon the terms of the grant. Looking at the fact that the husband divested himself of all his rights that he prohibited his descendants from claiming the property or its price, we think that the gift was a gift out and out.

4. In this view we dismiss the appeal with costs.


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