Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The concluding portion of the quotation makes it abundantly clear that with regard to Rs. 7 the testator himself, although he was clear and definite in his mind about the arrangement, never took the necessary steps of mutation or delivery of possession. He, in the event of himself not taking the necessary steps, left the matter in the hands of his son, Radha Ballabh. There can be no manner of doubt that the testator's treatment of the two portions was different. With regard to Rs. 5 he had already done something; with regard to Rs. 7 he contemplated doing something. The transfer with regard to the former amounted to a transfer in prassenti; with regard to the latter it amounted to a testamentary disposition. It is settled law that a person with restricted rights in a joint Hindu family can make a gift for charitable purposes, if the portion gifted bears a very small proportion to the entire estate: vide Sardar Singh v. Kunj Bihari Lal ('22) 9 A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 261 This was the case of a Hindu widow but the principle will apply also to the manager or the father. A will stands on a different footing. It was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee so far back as the year Lakshman Dada Naik v. Ram Chandra Dada Naik ('80) 5 Bom. 48 at p. 62 that it is not permissible to the father or manager of a joint Hindu family to make a testamentary disposition with respect to the joint family property. In the words of their Lordships:

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.
Mr. Chatterji, the learned Counsel for the respondent has, however, tried to support the transaction on the ground of consent. The finding of the learned. Judge on this question is in these terms : " These facts clearly show subsequent, if not previous consent." He has taken his stand principally on the case in Brijraj Singh v. Sheodan Singh ('13) 35 All. 337 at p. 709, but that was a case where their Lordships made it abundantly clear that the arrangement which had been entered into between the father and the sons was to take effect immediately, that is on the date that it was arrived at. The arrangement there was, therefore, to operate in prassenti and its operation was not postponed to any future date. It has, in the alternative, been contended by the learned Counsel that even a post facto consent is enough to validate the transaction. If it is true, as was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Lakshman Dada Naik v. Ram Chandra Dada Naik ('80) 5 Bom. 48, that " there remains nothing upon which the will can operate," there remained nothing which could be validated by consent, and the consent, either of Radha Ballabh or of Jawahar Lal was of no avail. The dispute has been set at rest by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Lalta Prasad v. Sri Mahadeoji Birajman Temple ('20) 7 A.I.R. 1920 All. 116. The Privy Council case on which the learned Counsel took his stand, itself makes this point clear. The passage in the will made by the father on which reliance was placed ran in these terms : " If I, at any time come back from pilgrimages and find mismanagement or character of any one bad, then I shall have power to cancel this will, which shall be enforced from the date of its execution." Their Lordships were of the opinion: