9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether an adoption of a son by a Hindu after the execution of a deed of gift but before registration renders the deed void against the adopted son. Analysis: 1. The case involved two consolidated appeals from the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding the validity of a deed of gift executed by a Hindu individual. The main issue was whether an adoption of a son by the individual after the deed of gift but before its registration would invalidate the gift against the adopted son. 2. The deed of gift in question was executed by Vaithilingam Pillai, who later adopted the appellant as his son. The appellant argued that since the adoption occurred before the registration of the gift deed, the gift was incomplete and could be revoked due to the intervening rights of the adopted son in the family property. 3. The interpretation of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, along with Sections 47 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act 3 of 1877, was crucial in determining the validity of the gift. Section 123 specifies that for a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be by a registered instrument. However, Section 47 of the Registration Act states that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced to operate even if registration was not required. 4. The High Court, following the precedent set by a Full Bench decision, held that the gift deed, if executed in accordance with Section 123, takes effect from the date of execution, not registration. The Full Bench decision clarified that the donor does not need to have the deed registered; it is sufficient that the deed is executed. The crucial factor is the acceptance of the gift by the donee during the donor's lifetime. 5. Another Full Bench decision from the High Court of Bombay supported this view, stating that once the donor hands over a duly executed gift instrument and the gift is accepted by the donee, the donor cannot revoke the gift before registration. The registration is a necessary formality but does not suspend the gift's validity. 6. The appellant's arguments, as presented in dissenting judgments, were considered but ultimately rejected by the Privy Council. The Council agreed with the Full Bench decisions from both Madras and Bombay, affirming that registration is not a prerequisite for the completion of a gift of immovable property if the deed is executed and accepted by the donee during the donor's lifetime. 7. Therefore, the Privy Council advised affirming the judgment and decrees of the High Court, dismissing the appeal, and ordering the appellant to pay the costs. The decision aimed to settle the controversy surrounding the validity of gifts of immovable property made by Hindus post-adoption but pre-registration, providing a uniform interpretation applicable throughout India.
|
