JUDGMENT

1. The only point referred to the Full Bench for consideration is the question of the validity or otherwise of a deed of gift, dated the 29th of January 1894, executed by Musammat Tulsha Kunwar, in favour of her only daugter, Musammat Naraini Kunwar. This document recites that Musammat Naraini Kunwar was her sole issue, and the donor wished to give the entire property in seven villages to her; but that, inasmuch as during her lifetime she had also to provide for her own maintenance and other necessary expenses, and it was reprehensive and forbidden for her to receive any benefit or to take anything from her daughter, she considered it proper to get the name of her daughter recorded over four villages at once, but to remain in possession of the other three villages for her life, meeting the expenses of her maintenance and other necessary expenses from the profits thereof. But all the seven villages were comprised in the gift, and it was stated that she had no longer any claim or right left in respect of all the property gifted, and the donee would have all the powers of a proprietor, with this exception that the three villages last mentioned would remain in her possession during her life and she would bring the profits thereof into her use, but she would have no power of sale, mortgage, gift, or other transfer, and they would after her death some into the proprietary possession of her daughter.

2. It is an admitted fact that Musammat Tulsha Kunwar allowed Musammat Naraini Kunwar to obtain possession over the four villages first mentioned, and got her name recorded in respect of them in the revenue papers. There is thus no doubt as to the genuineness of her intention. It is assumed far the purpose of this reference that Musammat Tulsha Kunwar was the full proprietor, and the only question is as to the validity of the gift in respect of the three villages, over which she had retained the right of remaining in possession for life and did in fact retain possession. Musammat Naraini Kunwar died in the lifetime of Musammat Tulsha Kunwar, and the present dispute is between the respective heirs of the two ladies.

3. Reading the document as a whole, there can be no doubt that it was not a bequest of the three villages by Musammat Tulsha Kunwar in favour of her daughter, but that she did intend to effect a transfer in presenti of her proprietary interest in the three villages, though she stipulated that she would have the right to remain in effective possession of them by appropriation of their profits for her life.

4. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has urged, (1) that under the Hindu Law delivery of possession was absolutely essential for the completion of the gift, (2) that that provision of the Hindu Law has in no way been affected by the passing of the Transfer of Property Act and (3) that in any case a provision, that the donor is not to deliver possession during her life-time to the donee, vitiates the gift altogether.

5. As to the first point it may be conceded at once that the general trend of the authorities prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act was to the effect that under the Hindu Law a gift, unaccompanied by delivery of possession, was invalid. A number of oases on this point have been cited on behalf of the appellant, but we consider it unnecessary to review them. It may be assumed for the purpose of this case that the defendant's contention is correct.

6. We are, however, of opinion that whatever might have been the strict Hindu Law prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, it must now be held that a gift of Immovable property can be validly effected by a registered instrument, signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses, and that nothing further is necessary to offe(sic)tuate a transfer. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that nothing in Chapter 7 shall, save as provided by Section 123, be deemed to affect any rule of Hindu Law