Skip to content


Dasi Svarnam Vs. Deivanayagam Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1915)28MLJ378
AppellantDasi Svarnam
RespondentDeivanayagam Pillai and ors.
Cases ReferredRamatnirtam v. Gopala Aiyar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....it was not registered during the life-time of the donor, who executed and registered another deed of gift of the same property in favour of the respondents' predecessor in title on the 15th december. the appellant presented her deed for registration 3 days before the donor's death and she stated in her petition that the donor was unwilling to register it. it was registered after the donor's death. the gift in favour of the appellant was undoubtedly revoked by the donor and the registration was against her wishes.2. there is therefore, no valid gift if the decision in ramamritam gopala ayyar i.l.r. (1896) m. 433 is right. the appellant's counsel contends on the authority of meyyalu nadan v. anjalay i.l.r. (1902) m. 672. parbati v. baij nath pathak i.l.r. (1912) a. 3 and kheshaba v......
Judgment:

1. The appellant claims the property under a deed of gift in her favour executed on the 7th December. It was not registered during the life-time of the donor, who executed and registered another deed of gift of the same property in favour of the respondents' predecessor in title on the 15th December. The appellant presented her deed for registration 3 days before the donor's death and she stated in her petition that the donor was unwilling to register it. It was registered after the donor's death. The gift in favour of the appellant was undoubtedly revoked by the donor and the registration was against her wishes.

2. There is therefore, no valid gift if the decision in Ramamritam Gopala Ayyar I.L.R. (1896) M. 433 is right. The appellant's counsel contends on the authority of Meyyalu Nadan v. Anjalay I.L.R. (1902) M. 672. Parbati v. Baij Nath Pathak I.L.R. (1912) A. 3 and Kheshaba v. Chandrabhagabai I.L.R. (1908) B. 441 that the decision should not be followed. The later Madras decision only holds that if the document is registered after the donor's death by the legal representative or with his consent, it is not invalid by reason of the registration having taken place after the donor's death. There is no inconsistency between this and the case in Ramatnirtam v. Gopala Aiyar I.L.R. (1896) M. 433 which holds that registration against the wishes of the donor will not render an instrument of gift effective.

3. The decision in 19 Madras does not in our opinion apply to a case in which the registration was not against the wishes of the donor. We are not prepared to differ from this decision.

4. It was also argued that the gift in favour of the Respondent's predecessor in title is void as it was executed by the donor under undue influence. It is found as a fact that this was not so.

5. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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