Walter Schwabe, C.J.
1. The facts of this case are that one Vaithilingam Pillai made a deed of gift of certain property on the 9th of September 1891, and it has been found as a fact--and that finding is accepted by the appellant-that that deed of gift was handed over to the donee on the day of execution. Next day the donor adopted a son, the present appellant. After the adoption the deed of gift was registered on the 15th of September 1891.
2. It is now contended that, as the adoption took place before the registration and on adoption the adoptee, according to Hindu Law, is in the same position as a child born to the adopter, his rights to this property had intervened and the gift is,, therefore, void. Under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, (corresponding to Act III of 1877) Section 47, 'a registered document operates from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.' Under Section 49, 'no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immoveable property unless it has been registered.' The effect of those sections, in my judgment; is that, if a title is complete except for registration, no subsequent alienation or dealing with the1 property by the vender or donor, as the case may be, can defeat the title which, on registration, becomes an absolute title dating from the date of the execution of the document. In this case, upon handing over the deed of gift to the donees, on the authorities, this deed became irrevocable, and upon the subsequent registration, the title dated back to the date of its execution. It is enough to say that there is along line of authorities not altogether uniform but ending with Venkali Rama Reddi v. Pillati Rama Reddi 38 Ind. Cas. 707 : 20 M.L.T. 450, a decision of the Full Bench of this Court which has now established that the subsequent birth of a child, or the adoption of a child, or the death of the vendor or donor has no effect in defeating a title obtained under an instrument executed before the happening of these events, but registered thereafter. By that decision we are bound and I think it is right to add that I entirely agree with it and, in my judgment, these appeals must be dismissed with costs.
Coutts Trotter, J.
3. I am of the same opinion and only desire to add a word, because I had occasion in Venkati Rama Reddi v. Pillati Rama Reddi 38 Ind. Cas. 707 : 40 M. 204 : 20 M.L.T. 450 to consider the present state of the case-law on this subject. My brother Seshagiri Ayyar and myself came to the conclusion that certain of the cases reported in the Madras series were contrary to the general trend of authority and incorrectly decided, and I pointed out in the reference that two well known writers of text-books had expressed the opinion that some Madras cases--I may take Ramamirtha Ayyan v. Gopala Ayyan 19 M. 433 : 6 Ind. Dec. 1007 as a type--were wrongly decided. Accordingly, in order to set doubts at rest, we sent the case up to a Full Bench asking this question: '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?' The Full Bench in that case took the same view as the one which myself and my brother Seshagiri Ayyar had indicated, and decided that the registration was perfectly valid, even although the doner or his representatives did not consent to its registration; that the donee could effect registration, and that when that was done the title would date back to the date of the execution of the document. That seems to me to follow the plain words of the Statute, and I do not think that, after an authoritative ruling given by this Court so lately as 1917, we should depart from it. If the appellant wishes to show that that decision is wrong, I think he must seek to decision the Privy Council.
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
4. I agree with the Chief Justice and have little to add. I think we are bound by the finding that the document was handed over to the trustees and. by the decision of the Full Bench in Venkati Rama, Reddi v. Pillati Rama Reddi 38 Ind. Cas. 707 : 40 M. 204 : 20 M.L.T. 450 with which I agree.