LexNATHOO LAL versus DURGA PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. .( - S.C.R SUPREME COURT R:EPORTS Customary Law , in the, Punjab; , adoption . is '. secular; in ch.aracter, the. object :being to• appoint an heir :and . .'the ruks relating. to ,ceremonies and, to• preferences,.in. selec- tion have to be held } to· be · directory and adoptions made in disregard of them are not invalid. There is no substance in the appeal and we dismiss :ir with costs. . . Appeal dismissed. NATHOO LAL v. DURGA PRASAD [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN c.r, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.J Hindu Law-Female-Alienation in her favour-Whether any presumption of law that she does not get absolute or alienable ·interest i1! the property-Whether the case of a male and that of a female' rilitferent. It may be taken as well settled that there is no warrant , for the proposition of law that when a grant of immoveable property is made to a Hindu female she does not get an absolute or alien- able interest in such property unless such power is expressly con- ferred upon her. The law is that there is no presumption one way or the other and there is no difference between the case of a male and the case ·of a female and the fact that the. donee is a woman does .not make the gift any the less absolute where the words would be ·sufficient ·to convey an absolute estate to a male. Mohamed Shumsool v. Shewukram (2 I.A. 7), Nagammal v. Subbalakshmi [(1947) I.M.L.J. 641 and Ram Gopal v. 'Nand Lal <(A.LR. 1951 S. C. 139) referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE No. 59 of 1953. JURISDICTION : Civil . Appeal Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th April, 1950, of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Case No. 24 of Samvat 2005 (Rei.view modi- :fying the Decree dated the 3rd March, 1949, of the High •Court of the former Jaipur State in Civil Second Appeal No. 187 of Samvat 2004 against the · Decree 1954 Hem Singh and Another v. HamamSingh and Another . 1954 April 9. 195<l Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad, Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J. 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 dated the 15th April,. 1948, of the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, in Civil Appeal No. 40 of Samvat 2004 arising out of the decree dated the 23rd August, 1947, of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, in Suit No. 66 of Samvat 2002). Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (Rajinder Narain, with him} for the appellant. D. M. Bhandari, (K. N. Aggarwala and R. N. Sach- they, with him) for the respondent. 1954. April 9. The . Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.-This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judica- ture of Rajasthan, dated the 5th April, 1950, modify- ing the decree of the High Court of the former Jaipur State, dated the 3rd March, 1949, on an application for review in a second appeal concerning a suit for posses- sion of propertv. The property in dispute originally belonged to one Ramchandrn who died sonless in the year 1903. He was survived by his mother, Sheokori, his widow, Mst. · Badni, and his two daughters, Bhuri and Laxmi. It is alleged that he made an oral will under which he bequeathed the property in dispute . to his daughter, Laxmi. On the 6th September, 1906, Mst. Sheokori and Mst. Badni, purporting to act in accordance . with the directions of the oral will, executed and . registered · a deed of gift of the property in dispute in favour of Mst. Laxmi. The gift deed contains the following recitals :- "These houses are made a gift to you according to- the will of your father, Ramchandra ......... In this way, these houses belonging to us were purchased by your.' father Ramchandra, and he in his last days having made a gift of these houses to you, made a will to us that he· had made a gift of that house to his daughter, Laxmi, and directed us to get the gift deed registered in her name. He further said that if we or our relations, kinsmen, creditors do raise any dispute with. her he· would 'damangir hoonga' catch hold of him by his: ·- - + '( ) - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 53 garments. According to his aforesaid will, we have got this gift deed executed in your favour, while in best of our senses and in discharge of our sacred duty enjoyed by Dharma ........ No other person except .you has got any claim over the house. You deal with your house in any way you like. If anybody takes back the land gifted by himself or his ancestors, he will live in hell as along as the sun and moon shines." The sc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.