In Guramma Bhratar Chanbassappa Deshmukh v. Malappa,(2 ) it was observed by this Court that "the Hindu law texts conferred a right upon a daughter or a sister, as the case may be, to have a share B in the family property at the time of partition. The 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 represenc tative to make such a gift is not confined to the marriage occasion .. .' ..... Marriage is only a customary occasion for such a gift. But the moral obligation can be discharged at any time, either during the life time of the father or thereafter." But we have not been referred to a single case where a gift by a husband to his wife of immovable ancestral property if made, has been upheld. We D 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 to which reference has been made. The contention of the doneeappellant that the gift in her favour by her husband· of ancestral immovable property made out of affection should be upheld must therefore fail, for no such gift is permitted under Hindu Law insofar as inunovable ancestral property is concerned.
