Battini Ramaswami and Others Vs Jutta Papayya and Another

Madras High Court 7 Mar 1893 (1893) 03 MAD CK 0006

Judgement Snapshot

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. It is conceded that Gangamma obtained the land in dispute as a gift from her father some forty years ago and that she was in possession from

that time till her death three years ago. The plaintiffs are her son and grandson. Defendants are her brothers and brother''s sons. Both the courts

below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the land and not the defendants. The contention on appeal is that under Hindu law it must be

presumed that a gift to a female is only for her life and reference is made to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram, L. R 2 I. A 7 and Bhujanga v.

Ramayamma, I. L, R 7 M 387

2. It is no doubt remarked by the Lords of the Privy Council in L. R 2 I. A 7 that it may be assumed that a Hindu knows that, as a general rule at

all events, women do not take absolute estates of inheritance which they are enabled to alienate, and that in construing the will of a Hindu it is not

improper to take into consideration what are known to be the ordinary notions and wishes of Hindus with respect to the devolution of property.

That case was decided on the construction of the will. The above case was considered by the Calcutta High Court in a case reported in 24 W.R

395 Mussamut Kollany Kooer v. Luchmee Pershad, and it was held that women are not by reason of their sex debarred from taking an absolute

estate when such estate appears to have been intended by the testator. In the case of Bhujanga v. Ramayamma, I. L. R 7 M 387 it was held on the

construction of the document that the property was given as Stridhanam. In the present case the deed of gift is not produced, nor is it shown that

Gangamma was a widow when her father gave the property to her. She has left sons surviving her. Under these circumstances there is no

foundation for the presumption that the donee''s sons were intended to be displaced by those of the donor.

3. Such is not the ordinary intention of a Hindu when he makes a gift to his daughter under coverture.

4. The presumption relied on by the appellant being inapplicable, we dismiss this appeal with costs.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More