Legitimacy and ancestral gift rules under Hindu law: non-access was not proved, and the wife's gift deed failed.

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, rebuttable only by proof of non-access; the evidence here did not establish non-access, so the plaintiff was held to be Rangaswami Chettiar's legitimate son. Under Hindu law, ancestral immovable property cannot be validly gifted by a husband to his wife merely out of affection or on a supposed pious obligation; that doctrine did not extend to this transaction, so the gift deed was invalid. The decree in the respondent's favour was sustained and the plaintiff's partition claim remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Rangaswami Chettiar under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) whether the gift of ancestral immovable property made by Rangaswami Chettiar in favour of his wife was valid in Hindu law.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Rangaswami Chettiar under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: Section 112 raises a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, rebuttable only by proof that the spouses had no access to each other at the relevant time. The evidence relied upon by the appellants, including the husband's denial of paternity, was insufficient to establish non-access. The mother's evidence that was accepted by the courts below was not displaced, and the physical circumstances did not show impossibility of access.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was held to be the legitimate son of Rangaswami Chettiar, and the finding was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the gift of ancestral immovable property made by Rangaswami Chettiar in favour of his wife was valid in Hindu law.

Analysis: Under Hindu law, gifts of ancestral immovable property are permissible only within narrow limits and for pious purposes. The scope of that doctrine had been extended for certain gifts to daughters in fulfilment of antenuptial promises or moral obligations, but not to a gift by a husband to his wife of ancestral immovable property. A purported pious obligation to carry out the father-in-law's wishes could not legalise what Hindu law did not otherwise permit, nor could the transaction be upheld as a valid gift out of affection.

Conclusion: The gift deed was invalid and could not be upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, the decree in favour of the respondent was sustained, and the plaintiff's entitlement to partition and share in the properties remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Legitimacy under Section 112 can be displaced only by proof of non-access, and ancestral immovable property cannot be validly gifted by a Hindu husband to his wife merely out of affection or as a supposed pious obligation.

---