A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the validity of a gift deed executed by a Hindu widow, Sumitra Devi, in favour of her daughter Kamala Devi, concerning four houses forming part of her widow’s estate. The gift, executed almost two years after the daughter’s marriage but in fulfilment of an ante-nuptial promise, was challenged by reversioners. The principal issue was whether such a gift binds the reversioners under Hindu Law as it existed before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 123, impacts the gift’s validity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the marriage of a daughter is a religious obligation and a pious duty, allowing the widow to validly make a gift of a reasonable portion of the estate even after the marriage in fulfilment of an ante-nuptial promise. The judgment further clarifies the retrospective operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Ultimately, the Court validated the gift and reversed the lower courts’ decisions that had voided the transaction beyond the widow’s lifetime[1].

Keywords: Hindu widow’s power, Gift for daughter’s marriage, Ante-nuptial promise, Hindu Law, Widow’s estate, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, reversioners’ rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Kamala Devi v. Bachu Lal Gupta

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1953

iii) Judgement Date: January 29, 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Chief Justice S.R. Das, Justice N.H. Bhagwati, Justice S.K. Das

vi) Author: Justice S.K. Das

vii) Citation: (1957) SCR 452

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 link

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 link

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:

• Ganga Bisheshar v. Pirthi Pal, (1880) ILR 2 All 635, disapproved.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:

• Hindu Law

• Property Law

• Succession Law

• Personal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case involves the intricacies of Hindu Law concerning the widow’s estate and her right to alienate property through gift deeds. The plaintiff-reversioners challenged the deed of gift by the widow as void beyond her lifetime. The backdrop features the partition of a Hindu joint family estate, allotment of properties to a widow with restricted rights, and the critical question of fulfillment of religious and moral obligations related to a daughter’s marriage[2].

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Ram Kishori Lal, a wealthy resident of Asansol, passed away in 1927, leaving behind a considerable estate comprising businesses and properties. After his death, his widow Sumitra Devi sought partition against her stepsons. A final partition decree awarded her one-third share, comprising mainly of immovable properties, including the four houses in dispute[3].

In the course of arranging her daughter Kamala Devi’s marriage with Bijoy Kumar Sao, an ante-nuptial promise was allegedly made to bestow four houses as part of the dowry. Although the marriage occurred in 1938, the formal deed of gift was executed and registered in 1940. Upon Sumitra Devi’s actions, the step-sons filed a suit claiming the gift was invalid beyond her life interest and unenforceable against reversioners[4].

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the widow was competent under Hindu Law to execute a gift of immovable property post-marriage in fulfilment of an ante-nuptial promise.

ii) Whether Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act bars such a gift executed years after the marriage.

iii) Whether Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 retrospectively validates the widow’s absolute ownership of the property.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that:

The widow retained the authority under Hindu Law to gift a reasonable portion of the estate for religious purposes, namely the marriage of a daughter, even if the actual deed was executed subsequently. They argued that an ante-nuptial promise creates a moral and religious obligation. Furthermore, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 grants full ownership rights retrospectively to Hindu women, covering gifts made previously[5].

Reliance was placed on:

• Debi Mangat Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh (1912) 39 IA 121 (Privy Council) link.

• Bhagwati Shukul v. Ram Latan Tewari (1922) 45 All 297 link.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The property belonged to the widow under limited ownership, and alienation beyond lifetime interest was impermissible without legal necessity. They asserted that the gift was made belatedly and was thus not connected with the marriage ceremony, violating Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Further, they argued Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 exempted gifts made under restricted ownership from its ambit[6].

Reference was made to:

• Ganga Bisheshar v. Pirthi Pal (1880) ILR 2 All 635 link.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i)

• Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Mandates that gifts of immovable property be made through a registered deed[7].

• Section 14(1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Converts limited estate into absolute estate retrospectively unless expressly restricted[8].

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu widow could alienate a reasonable portion of her deceased husband’s estate for her daughter’s marriage as a religious duty even if the gift was executed after the marriage. The Court clarified that Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act only prescribes the mode of transfer and does not affect the power to make such a gift[9].

It validated the gift based on:

• Sardar Singh v. Kanni Beharilal (1922) 49 IA 383 link.

• Churaman Sahu v. Gopi Sahu (1909) 37 Cal 1 link.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that even though the gift was executed two years later, its origin rooted in the marriage negotiations sufficed. The ante-nuptial moral obligation sanctified the gift, thus sustaining it beyond the widow’s lifetime[10].

c. GUIDELINES

• Hindu widows can fulfill an ante-nuptial promise by gifting a reasonable portion of the estate.

• The act of registration validates the mode of transfer without questioning the motive.

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 transforms limited estates unless specifically restricted.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s interpretation reinforces the religious significance attached to marriage obligations in Hindu law. The judgment appreciates moral obligations as forming the legal basis for gifts even after the marriage event, thereby aligning traditional Hindu values with evolving statutory frameworks. It also provides judicial recognition to women’s absolute property rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thereby fortifying gender justice within succession laws[11].

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Bhugwandeen Doobey v. Myna Baee (1868) 11 MIA 487.

[2] Debi Mangat Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh (1912) 39 IA 121.

[3] Sardar Singh v. Kanni Beharilal (1922) 49 IA 383.

[4] Churaman Sahu v. Gopi Sahu (1909) 37 Cal 1.

[5] Kudutamma v. Narasimha Charyulu (1907) 17 MLJ 528.

[6] Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi (1924) 52 MLJ 606.

[7] Ganga Bisheshar v. Pirthi Pal (1880) ILR 2 All 635.

[8] Bhagwati Shukul v. Ram Latan Tewari (1922) 45 All 297.

b. Important Statutes Referred

[9] Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 123.

[10] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14.