Principles of Hindu Law

A Hindu father or another managing member has the power to make a gift, within reasonable limits, of ancestral immovable property for pious purposes. However, such alienation must be an act inter vivos (between living persons) and not by will. A member of a joint family cannot dispose of a portion of the property by will, even for charitable purposes, regardless of how small that portion is relative to the entire estate (as per Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956).

In the case below, the Supreme Court examined this issue and held that a father may make a gift of immovable property to a daughter, provided the gift is reasonable in extent, given the total assets held by the family. The emphasis here is on the gift being of reasonable extent.

If, based on the facts, it is found that the gift is unreasonable, the Supreme Court considered the extended meaning given in numerous decisions to the expression "pious purposes." In later cases, the Supreme Court observed, "We see no reason to extend the scope of the words 'pious purposes' beyond what has already been done in the two decisions of this Court," rejecting the argument that a husband could make any such gift of ancestral property to his wife solely out of affection under the guise of pious purposes.

The rationale behind certain restrictions on the disposition of coparcenary properties is the protection of the interests of other members of the coparcenary. When a gift is found to be invalid due to its impermissibility under Hindu law, the consent of other coparceners cannot validate it. A gift to a daughter, if challenged as invalid or unreasonable, must be proven by the father to be both reasonable and bona fide.

The High Court of Madras has held that a father has no authority to gift ancestral immovable property to his wife if it would prejudice his minor sons. However, the same court and the High Court of Orissa have ruled that he may gift a small portion of ancestral immovable property to his daughter at or after her marriage, provided the gift is reasonable and particularly if she is in poor circumstances.

In a case from Allahabad, the court declined to uphold a father's gift of a share in a village to his daughter's father-in-law, even though it was given as part of the daughter's marriage settlement. Similarly, a gift to a stranger is equally invalid, and other family members, while in possession, need not sue to annul it. A father has no power to gift even his undivided interest in joint family property to his concubine, and such a gift would not be validated by the subsequent division of the family. A son who is a coparcener also cannot gift family property to his mother.

References:

1. Puramma v. Chikkarangappa, AIR 1989 Kant 63 (gift by father's arishina kumkum not upheld).
2. Kamla Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, AIR 1957 SC 434 (see § 181B, p. 235).
3. Perunalakkal v. Kummaresan, AIR 1967 SC 569.
4. Thimmaiah v. Ningamma, AIR 2000 SC 3529 (case involving a gift to a daughter).