Priority of earlier gift deed and widow's remarriage title claim fail without proof of custom or bona fide transferee protection.

A gift deed executed and accepted earlier prevailed over a later sale deed because, under Section 47 of the Registration Act, registration did not defer its operative date; the bank also failed to prove the elements required for protection as a transferee under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, so it could not defeat the gifted share. A Hindu widow who remarried was not shown to have remarried under any proved ancient custom exempting her from forfeiture under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, so she failed to establish title to the remaining inherited share. The earlier gift was upheld to that extent, and relief for the balance was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier gift deed, though registered later, prevailed over the subsequent sale deed and whether the bank was protected as a transferee under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act; (ii) Whether the plaintiff, having remarried, retained title to the share inherited from her first husband in the absence of proof of an ancient custom permitting remarriage without forfeiture under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier gift deed, though registered later, prevailed over the subsequent sale deed and whether the bank was protected as a transferee under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: A gift becomes valid when it is executed and accepted by the donee, and registration does not postpone its operative effect where acceptance is proved. The gift deed in question was found to have been executed on 20 February 1946 and accepted by the donee. Under Section 47 of the Registration Act, the registered document operates from the date it would have operated if registration had not been required. The bank also failed to establish the elements necessary for protection as a bona fide transferee for value without notice, since no proper inquiry into the transferor's title was shown.

Conclusion: The earlier gift deed took priority over the later sale deed to the extent of the gifted share, and the bank was not protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff, having remarried, retained title to the share inherited from her first husband in the absence of proof of an ancient custom permitting remarriage without forfeiture under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856.

Analysis: A Hindu widow who seeks to avoid the statutory consequence of forfeiture on remarriage must establish the existence of an ancient custom or other recognised practice under which the remarriage was validly contracted and did not entail forfeiture. In the absence of evidence proving such custom, the widow cannot resist the statutory consequence. The plaintiff led no evidence to prove the alleged custom, and therefore failed to establish a subsisting title to the remaining share claimed by her.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to relief in respect of the remaining share inherited from her first husband.

Final Conclusion: The earlier gift was upheld against the subsequent sale deed to the extent of the gifted share, but the plaintiff failed to establish title to the balance of the property, and both second appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A validly executed and accepted gift operates from the date of execution notwithstanding later registration, and a widow claiming title after remarriage must prove the custom that prevents forfeiture of her inherited property.

---