1. In this case defendant 1, who inherited a very small business as a grocer prospered during many years and accumulated a sum of Rs. 17,000, according to the finding of the District Judge with which we agree, and in addition derived a sum of Rs. 2,000 and probably considerably more as profit from the business. He was unfortunate in his daughters, and there were difficulties in the way of getting them married. In order to obtain a husband for the younger daughter, whom he married to his sister's son, he executed the deed, Ex. A, in favour of his daughter and of his sister, the mother of his prospective son-in-law, at the time of the marriage, and thereby conveyed to his daughter, Rukmini Ammal, and to his sister, Annammal, two shops and a house worth Rs. 1,500 which it is recited in the deed, he had purchased with money acquired by himself in 1901 and was enjoying. It was contended both in the lower Court and here that this conveyance was not that it purported to be, but was intended as a security to defendant 2, the father of the bridegroom, in respect of certain money which defendant 2, had deposited with him. We agree with the District Judge that this is not made out. As to the terms of the deed conveying the property to Annammal, the sister, as well as to the daughter, we think that the conveyance to Annammal was intended to be benami for the daughter. Annammal was not only the aunt of the bride, but she was the mother of the bridegroom; and the intention probably was that property, as is often done, should stand in the name of an elder and responsible person as well as in the name of the girl so as to make it impossible for the husband to bring influence to bear on his wife later and get her to dispose of it.
2. The next contention raised is that, assuming this to be joint family property as found by the District Judge, the gift was of an excessive amount and should be disallowed on that ground.
3. The cases show that all the circumstances of the family are to be looked to. In this case the father, as we have already said, had acquired for the family, properties worth Rs. 17,000 and a business bringing in Rs. 2,000 annually and he had a daughter who was not well favoured to dispose of in marriage, taking these circumstances into consideration, we are not prepared to differ from the opinion of the District Judge that the gift, assuming it to be a gift, to the daughter was not excessive in amount.
4. The last objection taken is that the gift is bad, because it was made by the father on the basis that it was his self-acquired property whereas it was really joint family property and the decision of the Privy Council in Balwant Singh v. Rev. Rockwell Clancy(1) has been cited. In that case the elder brother who claimed to be solely entitled to the zamindari executed a mortgage of that property and got his younger brother to join him, as was expressly recited, in token of his assent. It afterwards turned out that at the time he signed the deed, the younger brother was a minor. The Privy Council held, of course, that it was void as against the younger brother and also that its execution by the elder brother could not in any way be relied upon as binding the share of the younger brother. As we have already mentioned it was clear in that case that the elder brother repudiated any claim to act in that transaction on behalf of the minor brother and merely got him to execute it as evidence of his assent to the transaction. On the other side the respondents rely on a more recent decision of the Privy Council in Bijraj Nopani v. Sreemutty Pura Sundary Dasse(2), a case in which certain members of a family who were interested in a certain property in their own right and as executors transferred the property without any references to their character of executors. Their Lordships say:
“But even in the absence of such direct evidence that the conveyance was by him in his capacity as executor as well as beneficial owner (if and to the extent that he was such owner), the deed makes it clear that all the vendors convey all the title and right that they possessed in the property, and that would undoubtedly include the right and title which one of them possessed as executor.”
5. In the circumstances of the present case the gift was made by the father in the performance of his duty as managing member of the family to get his daughter married. The recital that the house in question was purchased with his self-acquired money was probably inserted with a view of strengthening his daughter's title to the property, and does not in the circumstances of the case negative his intention of exercising any power of disposition he might have as managing member of the family. We think it is clear that he intended to part with all the interest he possessed in any capacity in the property, and that the insertion of the recital is not sufficient to invalidate the transaction, if otherwise proper. We hive already held that having regard to the circumstances of the family, the gift was not an improper one and we therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
S.N/R.K
6. Appeal dismissed.