JUDGMENT

1. We answer the question referred to us ” 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 ” in the affirmative. The learned Judges who referred the case have fully discussed the question and it is not necessary for us to go into the matter at any length. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act says ” For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses”. There is nothing in this section which requires the donor to have the deed registered; all that is required is that he should have signed the registered instrument. Once such an instrument is duly executed, the Registration Act allows it to be registered even though the donor may not agree to its registration and upon registration the gift takes effect from the date of execution. The doctrine that a donor who has left his gift incomplete cannot be compelled to complete it has no application to a case like this, for so far as he is concerned he has by executing the deed done all that he need do, for registration can be effected even without his cooperation.

2. This view of the law is adopted in Parbati v. Baij Nath Pathak (1914) 28 M.L.J. 378 Nand Kishore Lal v. Suraj Prasad (1902) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 672 : 12 M.L.J. 109 Hardei v. Bam Lal (1896) I.L. R 19 Mad. 433, Khashaba v. Chandrabhagabai (1898) I.L.R. 20 All. 392 and Bhabatosh Banerjee v. Soleman (1912) I.L.R. 35 All, 3. On the other hand the decision in Ramamirtha Ayyan v. Gopala Ayyan (1889) I.L.R. 11 A. 319 followed in Dasi Svarnam v. Deivanayagam Pillai (1896) I.L.R. 19 M. 433 : 6 M.L.J. 207 has proceeded upon a different view and so also the case in Amirdam v. Muthukumara Chetty (1903) 13 M.L.J. p. 303. The ruling in Meiyyalu Nadan v. Anjalay (1911) 28. M.L.J. p. 378 that the consent of the personal representative of the deceased donor to registration would validate the gift does not seem however to be quite consistent with these decisions. We are of opinion that Ramamirtha Ayyan v. Gopala Ayyan (1889) I.L.R. 11 A. 319 does not lay down the law correctly.