RAM GOPAL versus NAND LAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 14-11-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1950 
766 
SUI'REM:E COURT RE.PORTS 
(1950] 
that the impugned statute does not stand the test of 
reasonableness and is therefore void. 
Chi.'IJ-tama:n Rao 
v. 
The result therefore is that the orders issued by the 
Tiu State of Depl,lty Commissioner on 13th June 1950 and 26th 
Mndhya 
September 1950 are void, inoperative and ineffective. 
Prad•.••· 
We therefore direct the respondents not to enforce the 
M,ah.ajan J. 
1950 
Nov. li. 
provisions contained in section 4 of the Act aga~n.st the 
petitioners in any manner whatsoever. The pet1ttone>s 
will have their costs of these proceedings in the two 
petitions. 
Agent for the petitioners 
Rajinder Narain. 
Petitions allowed. 
m Nos. 78 and 79: 
Agent for the respondent m 
P.A. lv/~hta. 
RAM GOPAL 
II. 
Nos. 78 and 79: 
NAND LAL AND OTHERS 
[SAIYID FAZL Au, MUKHERJEA and CHANDRA-
SEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Gift to female owner-Construction-Gift for 
maintenance-Estate conveyed, whether absolute or limited-Use of 
the word 'Malik', effect of. 
· 
In construing a document whether in English or in verna-
cular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the 
words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered 
but tbat is only for the purpose of finding out the intended 
meaning of the words which have actually been employed. 
To convey an absolute estate to a Hindu female, no express 
power of a.lienaticn need be given ; it is enough if words of such 
amplit11de are used as would convey full rights of ownership. 
The term 'Malik' when used in a will or other document as 
descriptive of the position which a. devisee or donee is intended to 
hold, has been held apt to describe an owner possessed of lull 
proprietary rights, including a. full right of alienation, unless there 
is something in the context or in the surrounding circumstances 
to indicate that such f11ll 11roprietory rights were not intended to 
be conferred, 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
767 
The mere fact that • gift of property is made fot the Bupport 
and maintenance of a female relation could nob be taken to be a 
prima facie indication of the intention of the <loner, th.t the 
donee was to enjoy the property only during her life-time. The 
extent of interest, which the donee is to take, depends upon tha 
intention o( the donor as expressed by the language used, and if 
the dispositive words employed in the document are clear and 
unambiguous and import absolute ownership1 the purpose of ihe 
grant would not, by itself, restrict or cut down the interest. The 
desire to provide maintenance or residence of the donee would 
only show the motive which prompted the donor to make the gift, 
but it could not be read as a measure of the extent of the gift. 
Where a Hindu died leaving two widows, a widowed daughter· 
in-law and a daughter's son, and a relative of the family sating as 
guardian of the daughter's son's son who was then the nearest 
reversioner got a. relinquishment deed fi·om the daughter-in-law 
r'3nouncing all her claims to the estate and in return executed a 
deed of ' tamliknama' to her with respect to certain properties 
which ran as follows: 
11 I have therefore, of my own accord and free will, without 
any compulsion or coercion on the part of any one else while in 
my proper senses made a Tamlik of a double-storied pucca built 
shop ......... and & house and a kothri in Etawah ......... worth 
Rs. 8,000 for purposee of rasidence of the Musammat (the 
daughter-in-law) owned by the minor aforesaid ......... which at 
preaent stands let out on rent to Sunder Lal, brother of 
Mst. Meri a aforesaid ........ .in favour of Mst, Meria aforesaid, 
widow of Ohhedi Lal and made her the owner (Malik) ": 
Held, that there was nothing in the context of the document 
or in the surrounding circumetances which would displace the 
presumption of full proprietory rights which the use of the words 
Malik' is apt ordinarily to convey and the daughter-in-law 
obtained under the gift deed a full heritable and transferable title 
to the properties conveyed thereby. 
Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Pra•ad (57 I.A. 296), Koliani Koer 
v. Luchmee Parsad (24 W.R. 395), Tagore v. Tagore (I.A. Supp. 4 7) 
Sasiman Chaudhur<>in v. Shib Narayan (49 I.A. 25), Biswanath 
Prasad v. Chandrika (60 I.A. 56) relied on. 
Raja Ram Baksh v. Arjun (60 I.A. 56), Woodayaditta Deb v. 
Mukoond (22 W.R. 229) distinguished. 
APPELLATE juRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. LIX 
of 1949. 
Appeal from the judgment of the All

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.