Court upholds gift deed over sale deed, grants plaintiff one-third share, cancels sale deed partially. Appellant's claims rejected.

The court confirmed the validity of the gift deed executed by Raghubar Dayal in favor of the plaintiff, which took precedence over a subsequent sale deed to Union Bank. The court recognized a partition between the parties, upholding the plaintiff's entitlement to a one-third share of the property. The plaintiff's claim for relief was partially successful, with the sale deed being canceled for one-third of the property. The court rejected the appellant's claim under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and emphasized the lack of evidence regarding a custom permitting remarriage without forfeiture of property rights. Both appeals were dismissed, with costs not awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Execution and validity of the deed of gift.
2. Existence and effect of family settlement or partition.
3. Validity of the sale deed executed by Raghubar Dayal.
4. Plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
5. Application of Section 41, Transfer of Property Act.
6. Impact of remarriage on the plaintiff's rights to her deceased husband's property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Execution and Validity of the Deed of Gift:
The plaintiff alleged that Raghubar Dayal executed a gift deed in her favor on 20th February 1946, which was registered on 28th March 1946. The trial court confirmed the execution date of the gift deed and held that it took priority over the sale deed executed by Raghubar Dayal in favor of Union Bank on 26th February 1946. The court found intrinsic evidence in the deed itself showing that the gift had been accepted by Ramrati, as it was a condition precedent to her remarriage with Raghubar Dayal. The court cited Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines a gift and requires acceptance by the donee. The court concluded that the gift was valid and accepted before the sale deed was executed.

2. Existence and Effect of Family Settlement or Partition:
The trial court found that there had been a partition between Ram Harakh and Raghubar Dayal, giving each a one-third share of Sallar's property, with the remaining one-third going to their mother, Smt. Gangajali. The court noted that the plaintiff continued to hold the property inherited from her husband even after remarriage, as the defendant did not plead forfeiture of her rights upon remarriage.

3. Validity of the Sale Deed Executed by Raghubar Dayal:
The trial court struck off the issue regarding the validity of the sale deed for want of consideration after the plaintiff's counsel admitted its execution and consideration. The court held that the gift deed, executed and accepted on 20th February 1946, took precedence over the sale deed executed on 26th February 1946, based on Section 47 of the Registration Act, which states that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced if no registration had been required.

4. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Relief:
The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 26th February 1946, to the extent of her one-third share. The lower appellate court partially upheld this, declaring the sale deed invalid for one-third of the property but valid for the remaining two-thirds. The plaintiff's claim to the two-thirds share was dismissed due to lack of evidence proving her subsisting title and the existence of a custom permitting remarriage without forfeiture of property rights.

5. Application of Section 41, Transfer of Property Act:
The court rejected the appellant's claim of being a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the gift deed under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court found that the Union Bank failed to make prudent inquiries about Raghubar Dayal's title to the entire property and noted that the plaintiff did not lead the bank to believe Raghubar Dayal was the sole owner.

6. Impact of Remarriage on the Plaintiff's Rights to Her Deceased Husband's Property:
The court discussed the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, which generally entails forfeiture of a widow's rights in her husband's property upon remarriage unless a pre-existing custom permits remarriage without forfeiture. The plaintiff failed to prove such a custom, resulting in the court's rejection of her claim to the two-thirds share of the property. The court emphasized that the plaintiff, as the party seeking relief, bore the burden of proving her subsisting title and the existence of the custom.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed. The plaintiff's request for cancellation of the sale deed was granted only to the extent of her one-third share in the property. The court made no order as to costs.

---