Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This document has got to be read along with the deed of relinquishment, which is a contemporaneous document execut- ed by Meria renouncing all her claims to the property left by Mangal Sen. The deed of relinquishment like the Tamliknama recites elaborately, with reference to previous events, particularly to the deed of gift executed by Mst. Mithani in favour of Thakur Prasad, the gradual devolution of the entire estate of Mangal Sen upon Nand Lal. It states thereafter that Babu Ram, as the guardian of the minor and also in his own right, "has under a Tamliknama dated this day made a 'Tamlik'. in my favour of a shop alongwith a Balakhana and a kota for my maintenance and a house ....... for purpose of my residence which are quite sufficient for my maintenance." "I have therefore, of my own accord ", the document goes on to say, "made a relinquishment of the entire property aforesaid mentioned in the deed of gift ......worth Rs. 25,000. I do covenant and do give in writing that I have and shall have no claim to or concern with the property ......... belonging to the minor afore- said, nor has the property aforesaid remained subject to my maintenance allowance nor shall I bring any claim at any time." The schedule to the instrument, it may be noted, gives a list of all the properties of Mangal Sen in respect to which Mst. Mithani executed a deed of gift in favour of Thakur Prasad, including the two items of property covered by the'Tamliknama' mentioned aforesaid.

35. Judges that the language of the document does not show that anybody else besides the lady herself was to be benefited by the grant and the indemnity given by Babu Ram was also given to the lady personally. It is further said that if Meria was given an absolute estate in the properties comprised in the 'Tamliknama', there was no necessity for including these two properties again in the deed of relinquishment which she executed at the same time.

I do not think that the mere fact that the gift of property is made for the support and maintenance of a female relation could be taken to be a prima facie indication of the intention of the donor, that the donee was to enjoy the property only during her life-time. The extent of interest, which the donee is to take, depends upon the intention of the donor as expressed by the language use, d, and if the dispositive words employed in the document are clear and unambiguous and import absolute ownership, the purpose of the 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 meas- ure of the extent of the gift. This was laid down in clear terms by the Judicial Committee in a comparatively recent case which is to be found reported in Bishunath Prasad v. Chandrika(1). There a Hindu executed a registered deed of gift of certain properties in favour of his daughter-in-law for the" support and maintenance" of his daughter-in-law and declared that the donee should remain absolute owner of the property (malik mustaqil) and pay Government revenue. There were no words in the document expressly making the interest heritable or conferring on the donee the power of making alienation. It was held by the Judicial Committee that the donee took under the document, an absolute estate with powers to make alienation giving title valid after her death. In course of the judgment, Lord Blanesburgh quoted, with approval, an earlier decision of the (1) 60 I.A 56 Judicial Committee, where the words "for your maintenance"

I am also not at all impressed by the other fact re- ferred to in the judgment of the High Court that if the properties were given to Meria in absolute right, there was no necessity for including them again in the schedule to the deed of relinquishment which Meria executed. I fail to see how the inclusion of the properties in the deed of relin- quishment would go to indicate that Meria's rights to these properties were of a restricted and not an absolute charac- ter. It is after all a pure matter of conveyancing and the two documents have to be read together as parts of one and the same' transaction. Under the ' Tamliknama ', Meria got two properties in absolute right out of the estate of Mangal Sen. By the deed of relinquishment, she renounced her claim for maintenance in respect of all the properties left by Mangal Sen including the two items which she got under the 'Tamliknama'. After the ' Tamliknama' was executed in her favour, there Was no further question of her claiming any right of maintenance in respect of these two items of property. She became the absolute owner thereof in exchange of her rights of maintenance over the entire estate and this right of maintenance she gave up by the deed of relinquish- ment. On a construction of the entire document, my conclu- sion is that there is nothing in the context of the docu- ment, or in the surrounding circumstances which would dis- place the presumption of full proprietory rights which the use of the word "Malik" is apt ordinarily to convey. The first contention of the appellant, therefore, succeeds and in view of my decision on this point, the second question does not arise for determination at all.