ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This revision is filed assailing the order passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, at Wanaparthy, refusing to receive a document in evidence, in O.S. No. 27 of l999.
2. The petitioner filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, in respect of a vacant site admeasuring about 25 square yards. According to her, the suit plot was gifted to her, by her father, the defendant, towards 'pasupu kumkuma', at the time of her marriage. During the pendency of the suit, her father died and legal representative was brought on record. In the written statement, the claim of the petitioner was denied. The alleged gift deed was stated to be, not genuine.
3. The trial of the suit commenced. During the course of evidence on behalf of the petitioner herein, an un-registered document, was sought to be marked. The respondent raised an objection stating that the document in question is an un-registered gift deed, and that it is inadmissible in evidence. Relying upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court, the Trial Court sustained the objection.
4. Sri Venkata Raghu Ramulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, under Hindu Personal Law, the father is under a pious obligation to make necessary provision to his daughter, at the time of her marriage, or any time subsequent thereto, and that any document making such arrangement, is not required to be registered. He submits that the Supreme Court and various High Courts, have recognized this legal position. He contends that the attention of the Full Bench of this Court, which decided Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy v. Mokkala Padmavathamma, : 2001(5)ALD402 (FB), was not drawn to the various judgments of the Supreme Court, and in that view of the matter, the view taken therein cannot override the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court.
5. The narrow controversy in this revision, is about the admissibility of a document, which is an unregistered gift deed. The petitioner claims that, through the document in question, her father gave the suit schedule property to her, towards 'pasupu kumkuma'. The family of a Hindu is so structured that while a son continues the pedigree, the daughter migrates to another family, on her marriage. She virtually leaves the abode of the parents, and becomes part of her husband's family. For all practical purposes, her relations with the family of her parents from the point of view of properties, get snapped. There are exceptions to this general practice, such as where a son-in-law is brought on illetum, or where a family settlement is made, and the like. In the recent past, Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act was amended, insofar as it applies to the State of Andhra Pradesh, providing for equal shares to daughters also. Earlier to that, the parents felt a pious and social obligation, towards their daughters to settle or gift some property, in favour of married daughters. In this part of the country, it is treated as 'pasupu kumkuma'.
6. The recognition of such practice and custom, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom, was dealt with, by Madras High Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to refer to all of them here. Way back in the year 1936, the Madras High Court recognized the moral obligation of a father, to gift small portions of ancestral properties to daughters.
7. In Guramma v. Mallappa, : [1964]4SCR497 , the Supreme Court enunciated the law as under:
'The legal position may be summarized thus: The Hindu Law texts conferred a right upon a daughter or a sister, as the case may be, to have a share in the family property at the time of partition. That right was lost by efflux of time. But it became crystallized into a moral obligation. The father or his representative can make a valid gift, by way of reasonable provision for the maintenance of the daughter, regard being had to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the family. By custom or by convenience, such gifts are made at the time of marriage, but the right of the father or his representative to make such a gift is not confined to the marriage occasion. It is a moral obligation and it continues to subsist till it is discharged. Marriage is only a customary occasion for such a gift. But the obligation can be discharged at any time, either during the lifetime of the father or thereafter. It is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule, prescribing the quantitative limits of such a gift as that would depend on the facts of each case and it can only be decided by Courts, regard being had to the overall picture of the extent of the family estate, the number of daughters to be provided for and other paramount charges and other similar circumstances'.
8. In Kamala Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, : [1957]1SCR452 , the Supreme Court not only recognized the legality of such transactions, but also held that deeds evidencing the same, need not strictly be complied with Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act'). It was held as under:
The learned Judges of the High Court referred to Section 123, T.P. Act, which lays down that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donar, and attested by at least two witnesses. In one part of their judgment, they said that but for the aforesaid provisions it might have been possible to consider the gift as having been made on the occasion of the marriage, the implementation of which was subsequent. In our opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court were in error with regard to the scope and effect of Section 123, T.P. Act. It is true that a gift becomes legally effective only when a registered instrument is executed in the manner laid down in that section. Section 123 does not deal with nor does it affect the power of a Hindu widow to make an alienation of a reasonable portion of her husband's estate in favour of the daughter as marriage dowry. That right is governed by Hindu Law and it is open to a widow to make an effective gift in favour of her daughter subsequent to the marriage, if the conditions laid down by Hindu Law are fulfilled'.
9. Similar question fell for consideration before this Court in B.N. Santoshrai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Tekkali, : AIR1980AP139 . The Division Bench considered the matter with reference to the various decided cases, and held that transfer of land, by a Hindu, in favour of his daughter, or sister, as a marriage provision, is not a gift within the meaning of Section 122 of the Act. This decision was overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy's case (supra). It is true that the Full Bench did not refer to any of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, on the subject. Omitting the introductory and conclusive paragraphs, the judgment of the Full Bench reads to the following effect:
'Para 7: The learned Judges committed a manifest error in holding that the daughters have a share in the property. The daughters save and except under a customary or statutory right cannot have any share in a joint family property. Even assuming that she has such right, she can only claim partition, but it is beyond any cavil of doubt that if a transaction is effected in writing, the same would require registration. The Division Bench, in our opinion, further committed a manifest error in holding that the 'pasupu kumkuma' being both involuntary as well as for consideration, the same would not be a gift within the meaning of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Evidently, such a transaction would create right in immovable property in one and the right of the owner thereof shall be extinguished and thus the same would attract the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. No authority has been cited by the learned Division Bench in support of their opinion that pasupu kumkuma could very well be done orally.
Para 8: Furthermore, the learned Judges proceeded on a wrong premise in holding that the pasupu kumkuma is not a gift. 'Pasupu Kumkuma' as defined in P. Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon means a gift, a settlement or assignment of land to a daughter. Inevitably therefore, such a gift of immovable property, the consideration, . whereof would be love and affection could come within the meaning of Section 123 thereof.
10. The occasion for the Full Bench of this Court, to overrule the judgment in B.N. Santoshrai's case (supra) arose, obviously because, the Division Bench in that case held that a document under which, the property was gifted towards 'pasupu kumkuma', cannot be treated as gift deed at all, under Section 122 of the Act. However, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamala Devi's case (supra), to the effect that Section 123 of the Act has no application to such deeds, does not appear to have been canvassed before the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel is correct in his submission that under Section 142 of the Constitution of India, the law laid down by the Supreme Court holds the field and is binding on all Courts including High Courts. However, once the Full Bench of this Court, has taken a view, sitting single, I cannot take a different view. At the most, it may be a case for fresh consideration, before a Bench of appropriate strength, on an appropriate occasion.
11. Judicial discipline demands that a Bench of inferior strength, always treats itself, bound by the decision rendered by Benches of higher strength. Howsoever convincing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel may be, I cannot deviate from the law laid down by the Full Bench in Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy's case (supra), except hoping that the matter would be dealt with extensively at an appropriate time and occasion.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.