Family settlement authority limits and unproved oral gift left the plaintiff's title intact against challenged transfers.

An alleged oral gift of village Khagsiamau was rejected because the evidence did not prove that any completed gift had been made, so the transaction was not binding on the plaintiff. The reconveyance of mortgagee rights in the villages listed in list 5 was also held to be beyond the authority created by the family settlement, since the holder was required to preserve and enforce the mortgage rights for the estate rather than divert the benefit to a son-in-law. The pleadings were treated as sufficient because the transaction itself disclosed the substance of the alleged misuse. The plaintiff's title was upheld, and the reconveyance was ineffective against her.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether village Khagsiamau was validly gifted to the defendants and was binding on the plaintiff. (ii) Whether the reconveyance of the mortgagee rights in the villages included in list 5 was within the powers of the holder under the family settlement and binding on the plaintiff.

Issue (i): Whether village Khagsiamau was validly gifted to the defendants and was binding on the plaintiff.

Analysis: The evidence was scrutinised to determine whether there had been an oral gift at the time of marriage. The finding was that no such gift in fact had been made. Since the foundational fact of a completed gift was not established, it was unnecessary to examine the further legal questions as to the power to make such a gift under the family settlement or Hindu law.

Conclusion: The alleged gift was not proved and was not binding on the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the reconveyance of the mortgagee rights in the villages included in list 5 was within the powers of the holder under the family settlement and binding on the plaintiff.

Analysis: The pleadings were held sufficient notwithstanding the objection based on Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the transaction itself disclosed the substance of the alleged wrongdoing. On the merits, the reconveyance deeds were found to exceed the powers conferred by the family settlement, as the holder was required to enforce the mortgage rights for the estate and not to divert the benefit to her son-in-law. The transactions were therefore treated as contrary to the settlement and ineffective against the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The reconveyance transactions were void and not binding on the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's title was upheld, and the connected appeals failed on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A disposition made in excess of the authority conferred by a family settlement is void against the reversioner, and a pleaded case of fraudulent or collusive diversion is not defeated where the transaction itself sufficiently discloses the substance of the alleged misconduct.

---