LILAVATI GANPATRAO KAKATIKAR Vs. TAKAPPA BHIMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises an interesting question of Hindu law, and the facts giving rise to the suit out of which the appeal arises are these.

(2.) BHIMAPPA and Ramchandrappa, two brothers, were members of a joint Hindu family. The family owned considerable property. When BHIMAPPA died, his son Takappa (plaintiff) was but a child. Ramchandrappa died in 1932 leaving Yellappa (defendant No.1 ). In 1921, there was a partition between Ramchandrappa and the minor plaintiff with his mother as guardian when the suit property was kept joint. In the partition the eastern half of the property was specified as of the plaintiff's share. Prior to this, on July 18, 1919, during the minority of the plaintiff, Ramchandrappa executed in fervor of one Jinasena Bhattaraka of Kolhapur a deed of gift of the property mentioned in paragraph 1 (6) of the plaint. On October 21, 1940, defendant No.1's natural father sold the property to Lilawati-bai (defendant No.2 ).

(3.) IN the present case the gift was by a managing member, and the question is whether the gift comes within the expression "for pious purposes. " IN Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, 10th ed. , p. 250, Section 226, the statement of the law is as follows : A Hindu father or other managing member has power to make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for 'pious purposes'. But the alienation must be by an act inter vivos, and not by will. . . . Even a single individual may conclude a donation, mortgage, or sale of immovable property, during a season of distress, for the sake of the family, and especially for pious purposes : Mitakshara, Ch. I, Section I, vv. 28-29.