TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettlement deed shows that the total extent of the property owned by the family was 3.16 acres. The gift was made of 12 cents along with Mangalore tiled house standing on the gifted land. It was also stated in the settlement deed that in future neither the respondent nor any other male or female heirs would have a right over the settled property. After nearly five years, on April 22, 1990, the respondent and his associates asked the appellants to vacate the property and tried to trespass into the property. Because of the attempt made by the respondent to trespass into the property, the appellants filed Original Suit No. 451 of 1990 in the Court of the District Munsif, Salem, seeking relief of restraining the respondent and his associates from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any way by way of a permanent injunction, or, for grant of relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. The respondent resisted the suit and in the written statement filed by him, he took the stand that he had not executed any settlement deed. That his son-in-law, i.e., the husband of appellant No. 1, had purchased a house site and the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouse site. That the total extent of the family holding was 3.16 acres of land. He admitted that his son was residing separately for the last three to four years but denied that he was retracting from the settlement deed on the advice of his son. That he was in the habit of drinking. No other evidence was led by any of the parties. The trial court believed the evidence of the respondent. It was held that the respondent was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office to witness a document whereas a deed of settlement was got executed from him. The testimony of PW-2, the attesting witness was discarded. It was held that the deposition of PW-2 in fact supported the case put forth by the respondent to the effect that the respondent was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office to sign as a witness. The trial court further held that since the property in dispute was ancestral in nature, the respondent had no power/authority to make a gift of a part of the ancestral property in favour of his daughters. The suit was dismissed. The order of the trial court was affirmed by the first appellate court as well as by the High Court, aggrieved against which the present appeal has been filed. It is subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o invited while he was found standing there...While going towards the Sub-Registrar's office, the defendant saw and invited me to sign as witness." The trial court in his judgment has misconstrued the above statement and recorded the following finding: "PW-2 had given evidence that the defendant was taken for affixing signature as witness on the date when the deed of settlement exhibit Al was executed." The trial court also held that: "If only the defendant had executed the deed of settlement in respect of the suit property in favour of his daughters, i.e., the plaintiffs, he would have at least taken his son, Ramasamy, for affixing his signature as witness. This factor is also not in consonance with the true nature and bona fides of exhibit A1." The finding recorded by the trial court clearly shows that the court misread and misconstrued the testimony of PW-2. PW-2 in his deposition has clearly stated that he was invited by the respondent to be a witness. He has nowhere stated that the defendant (respondent herein) was taken for affixing signatures as a witness. If the respondent was to be a witness then there was no need to ask PW-2 and Govindasamy to accompany the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the total holding of the family property but since in this case the total extent of property owned by the family had not been proved it could not be held that the property gifted by the father was of a reasonable portion of the total holding of the family. The High Court affirmed the finding recorded by the first appellate court. The High Court of Madras in a series of judgments has taken the view that the father could make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property to his daughter as a part of his moral obligation at the time of her marriage or even thereafter. In Anivillah Sundararamayya v. Cherla Seethamma [1911] 21 MLJ 695, it was held that a small portion of the ancestral immovable property could be given to the daughter at the time of her marriage or thereafter and such a gift would be a valid gift. In this case eight acres of ancestral immovable property out of 200 acres of land possessed by the family were given in gift by the father to his daughter after her marriage. Upholding the gift it was observed: "P. Narayana Murthi for first respondent: The present case is stronger than Kudutamma v. Narasimhacharyulu [1907] 17 MLJ 528, as it is the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purposes and even if the portion bears a small proportion to the entire estate. However, now see section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 258. (1) According to Mitakshara law as applied in all the States, no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in coparcenary property by gift. Such transaction being void altogether, there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which precludes the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property. He may, however, make a gift of his interest with the consent of the other coparceners. (2) As to disposition by will after the coming into operation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, see section 30 of that Act." Combined reading of these paragraphs shows that the position in Hindu law is that whereas the father has the power to gift ancestral movables within reasonable limits, he has no such power with regard to the ancestral immovable property or coparcenary property. He can, however make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for "pious purposes". However, the alienation must be by an act inter vivos, and not by will. This court has extended the rule in paragraph 226 and held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld depend on the facts of each case and it can only be decided by courts, regard being had to the overall picture of the extent of the family estate, the number of daughters to be provided for and other paramount charges and other similar circumstances. If the father is within his rights to make a gift of a reasonable extent of the family property for the maintenance of a daughter, it cannot be said that the said gift must be made only by one document or only at a single point of time. The validity or the reasonableness of a gift does not depend upon the plurality of documents but on the power of the father to make a gift and the reasonableness of the gift so made. If once the power is granted and the reasonableness of the gift is not disputed, the fact that two gift deeds were executed instead of one, cannot make the gift anytheless a valid one." The extended meaning given to the words "pious purposes" enabling the father to make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits to a daughter has not been extended to the gifts made in favour of other female members of the family. Rather it has been held that the husband could not make any such gift of ancestral....