Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
RANDHIR SINGH, J.
Union Bank Ltd., Utraula
Versus
Ram Rati
Second Appeal No. 438 of 1947
Decided On : 19-08-1953
GIFT - Acceptance - Registration - Revocation - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122, 41, 47 - Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 - Section 2 - Customary Remarriage - Forfeiture of Property Rights.
Fact of the Case:
A widow, Ramrati, sued to cancel a sale deed executed by her deceased husband, Raghubar Dayal, in favor of the Union Bank, Utraula, claiming ownership of the property under a gift deed executed by Raghubar Dayal in her favor. The Union Bank defended the suit, arguing that the gift deed was not valid and that the sale deed was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gift deed was executed and accepted by Ramrati before the sale deed was executed, and that the gift was, therefore, valid. The court also found that the Union Bank was not a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the gift deed and, therefore, could not rely on Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the court dismissed Ramrati's claim to a two-thirds share of the property, holding that she had failed to prove that she had a subsisting title to the property after her remarriage to Raghubar Dayal.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed executed by Raghubar Dayal in favor of Ramrati was valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the sale deed executed by Raghubar Dayal in favor of the Union Bank was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Whether Ramrati had a subsisting title to the property after her remarriage to Raghubar Dayal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A gift is complete and valid upon execution and acceptance, even if it is not registered. 2. A subsequent sale deed executed by the donor in favor of a third party will not revoke a prior gift that has been accepted by the donee. 3. A transferee who is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of a prior gift cannot rely on Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act to defeat the gift. 4. A Hindu widow who remarries under a custom that permits remarriage does not forfeit her rights in the property inherited from her previous husband unless the custom itself provides for such forfeiture. 5. A widow who claims a right to property after her remarriage must prove that she has a subsisting title to the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both appeals, holding that the gift deed in favor of Ramrati was valid and enforceable, but that Ramrati had failed to prove that she had a subsisting title to the two-thirds share of the property that she claimed.
2. Sallar had two sons, Ram Harakh and Raghubar Dayal. Ram Harakh died leaving the plaintiff as his widow. Sallar was possessed of some immoveable property and it was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that this property had been settled by a family settlement or partition in three equal shares in favour of Gangajali wife of Sallar, and the two sons of Sallar, Ram Harakh and Raghubar Dayal. Each of these three persons became owner of a third of the property of Sallar. On the death of Ram Harakh, his widow, the plaintiff, it was so alleged, agreed to marry Raghubar Dayal on the condition that he executed a gift deed of his property in her favour. The gift deed was executed on 20th February 1946 by Raghubar Dayal in favour of Ramrati in respect of his entire interest in the property. This deed was, however, not registered till 28th March 1946. In the meantime, on 26th February 1946, Raghubar Dayal executed a sale deed not only in respect of the one-third share in the property of the entire property of Sallar in favour of the Sallar which belonged to him, but in respect of Union Bank, Utraula.
After this sale deed, had been executed the plaintiff Ramrati brought a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Raghubar Dayal in favour of the Union Bank of Utraula against her. This suit was resisted by the Union Bank on various grounds. The contesting defendant denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the property in respect of which she had sued, or that the gift deed relied upon by the plaintiff had been executed on the 20th February 1946, and it was alleged that the gift had been acquired subsequently to defraud the defendant. The lower Court originally framed four issues in this case which are reproduced below :
1. Did defendant No. 2 execute any deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff as alleged ?
2. Was there any family settlement according to which the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are entitled to any and what share ?
3. Is the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2 valid? Is the deed invalid for want of consideration ?
4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
During the course of the evidence, however, the plaintiffs Counsel admitted the execution of the sale deed obtained by the defendant as also that it was for consideration and after this statement had been made issue No. 3 was struck off by the trial Court and the remaining three issues were tried.
The trial Court came to the conclusion that the gift deed dated 20th February 1946, had been executed on that date and although it was registered on 28th March 1946, after the sale deed had been obtained by the defendant the gift deed took priority over the sale deed obtained by the defendant, and that the plaintiff became owner of a one-third share of the property under the gift deed.
3. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2 was that there had been a partition between Ram Harakh and Raghubar Dayal and that one-third share in the property of Sallar was given to each of them and the remaining one-third to their mother Smt. Ganajali defendant No. 3. He also found that as it had not been pleaded on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff forfeited her right in her husbands property on re-marriage, she continued to hold the property inherited by her from her husband even after the re-marriage. No finding, however, was given by the trial Court with regard to the remaining one-third share of the property which had passed to Smt. Gangajali, mother of Ram Harakh and Raghubar Dayal, under the partition, but a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for the cancellation of sale deed dated 26th February 1946. The defendant went in appeal and it was contended that so far as the share of Gangajali was concerned, the plaintiff could not maintain a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed relating to that part of the property. It was also urged before the lower ap
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
