AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We answer the question referred to us "" whether a deed of gift registered by the donee after the death of the donor without the consent of the
legal representatives of the donor is valid "" in the affirmative. The learned Judges who referred the case have fully discussed the question and it is
not necessary for us to go into the matter at any length. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act says "" 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 donor and attested by at least two
witnesses"". There is nothing in this section which requires the donor to have the deed registered; all that is required is that he should have signed the
registered instrument. Once such an instrument is duly executed, the Registration Act allows it to be registered even though the donor may not
agree to its registration and upon registration the gift takes effect from the date of execution. The doctrine that a donor who has left his gift
incomplete cannot be compelled to complete it has no application to a case like this, for so far as he is concerned he has by executing the deed
done all that he need do, for registration can be effected even without his cooperation.
This view of the law is adopted in Parbati v. Baij Nath Pathak (1914) 28 M.L.J. 378 Nand Kishore Lal v. Suraj Prasad ILR (1902) Mad. 672
: 12 M.L.J. 109 Hardei v. Bam Lal I.L. R (1896) Mad. 433, Khashaba v. Chandrabhagabai ILR (1898) All. 392 and Bhabatosh Banerjee v.
Soleman ILR (1912) All, 3 On the other hand the decision in Ramamirtha Ayyan v. Gopala Ayyan ILR (1889) A. 319 followed in Dasi Svarnam
v. Deivanayagam Pillai ILR (1896) M. 433 : 6 M.L.J. 207 has proceeded upon a different view and so also the case in Amirdam, minor by her
Guardian, and Maternal uncle Muthukumara Chetty Vs. Muthukumara Chetty, . The ruling in Meiyyalu Nadan v. Anjalay (1911) 28. M.L.J. p.
378 that the consent of the personal representative of the deceased donor to registration would validate the gift does not seem however to be quite
consistent with these decisions. We are of opinion that Ramamirtha Ayyan v. Gopala Ayyan ILR (1889) A. 319 does not lay down the law
correctly.