Skip to content


Amirdam, Minor by Her Guardian, and Maternal Uncle Muthukumara Chetty Vs. Muthukumara Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ303
AppellantAmirdam, Minor by Her Guardian, and Maternal Uncle Muthukumara Chetty
RespondentMuthukumara Chetty
Cases Referred and Meiyyalu Nadan v. Anjalay I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- 1. the document the registration of which the plaintiff seeks, to compel is in part a deed of gift (subject to a obligation) and in part an appointment of a guardian of the person and property of certain minors.2. we are unable to uphold the ground on which the district registrar refused registration. the document so far as it appoints a guardian is not a document relating to immoveable property within the meaning of section 21 of the indian registration act any more than a power of attorney authorizing an agent to collect rents of immoveable property is such a document. registration, therefore, of that part of the document can be compelled as against the legal representatives of the executant if the document was really executed by the executant just as its registration could have been.....
Judgment:

1. The document the registration of which the plaintiff seeks, to compel is in part a deed of gift (subject to a obligation) and in part an appointment of a guardian of the person and property of certain minors.

2. We are unable to uphold the ground on which the District Registrar refused registration. The document so far as it appoints a guardian is not a document relating to immoveable property within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Registration Act any more than a power of attorney authorizing an agent to collect rents of immoveable property is such a document. Registration, therefore, of that part of the document can be compelled as against the legal representatives of the executant if the document was really executed by the executant just as its registration could have been enforced against the executant himself if alive.

3. But so far as the document is a deed of gift though an onerous one, its registration cannot be compelled either against the donee or his legal representatives since that would be compelling the donor or his legal representatives to complete an incomplete gift. Ramamintha Iyar v. Gopala Ayyan I.L.R. 19 M. 433 and Meiyyalu Nadan v. Anjalay I.L.R. 25 M. 672. The remand by the Subordinate Judge in order to have the question as to the genuineness of the document decided is correct. If the document is found to be genuine, the. District Munsif should order it to be registered but with the proviso that the registration is to take effect only so far as the document is one appointing a guardian. The effect of this will be that the document so far as it is a deed of gift will not take effect as a registered deed of gift for the purposes of the Transfer of Property Act. The deeds of gift in favour of the daughters referred to in the document before us being admittedly unregistered and the contemplated gift in favour of respondent also failing for want of registration, the question, as to whether the document will take effect as an appointment of the respondent as guardian of the minors is one which it is unnesessary to decide in this suit. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //