Kapur, J.:— This is a defendants' appeal against an appellate decree of Mr. Sham Lal, Subordinate Judge, Dharamsala, dated the 18th February, 1949 modifying the decree of the trial Court and reducing the area gifted in favour of the donee from 19 kanals 4 marlas to 9 kanals 10 marlas.
2. The following pedigree-table of the parties will show their relationship:
3. Dayala defendant No. 1 made a gift of 19 kanals 4 marlas of land in favour of his daughter Janam Devi on the occasion of her marriage. He made a gift of the rest of his land, his total holding being 27 kanals 4 marlas, to the plaintiff Gian Singh.
4. Gian Singh brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to challenge this gift and that the alienation will not affect his reversionary rights.
5. As Janam Devi was a minor, a Court official was in do a guardian-ad-litem. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit but the appellate Court varied the decree by reducing the lard gifted from 19 kanals 4 marlas to 9 kanals 10 marlas.
6. This appeal is filed by Dayala both on behalf of himself and on behalf of his minor daughter. A preliminary objection is raised that Dayala had no right to bring the suit and that the donee was not properly represented because the only person who could file the appeal was the guardian ad-litem, appointed by the Court and nobody else Reliance was placed on Order XXXII. rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, however, not necessary to decide this question because Dayala was a defendant and his rights of making the gift are being affected and he therefore had a right to bring this appeal and an appeal by him is therefore competent.
7. The only question that is to be decided is whether Dayala had the power to make a gift of 19 kanals 4 marlas out of his total estate of 27 kanals 4 marlas to his daughter on the occasion of her marriage. Under Question No. 89 of Middleton's Customary Law of Kangra District the custom is stated as under—
“Answer:—A father is at liberty to give a daughter anything he likes in the way of movable property. He can also give some of his immovable property in accordance with his means, and no consent of heirs is required for such gifts”
8. And there are a large number of instances given which show that the father has such a power. The question to be decided reduces itself to this—what is the meaning of the word ‘some’ and what portion of land a father can gift to his daughter on the occasion of her marriage. The learned appellate court has held that 9 kanals 10 marlas would be fair in the circumstances of this case. In Regular Second Appeal No. 854 of 1947, Jai Nand v. Mst. Orku, Mr. Justice Mahajan upheld the gift of a half where the land held by a father was 34 kanals 18 marlas, and he also upheld the gift of the self-acquired property of the father. This proportion is in my opinion a fair one and following the precedent laid down by Mr. Justice Mahajan, I would increase the land gifted in favour of the daughter to half of the whole, i.e, 13 kanals 12 marlas. The decree is then fore varied by increasing the area decreed in favour of the daughter from 9 kanals 10 marlas to 13 kanals 12 marlas
9. The plaintiff has brought cross-objections which must be dismissed in view of what I have said above.
10. In the circumstances of this case the parties will bear their own costs in this Court and in the Courts below.
11. Appeal partly allowed.