Registration requirement for dower-based property transfers: personal law did not displace statutory formality.

A deed transferring immovable property in consideration of dower was treated as a Hibabilewaz and, on its true character, as a sale for consideration rather than a pure gift. Because the property value exceeded the statutory threshold, a registered instrument was required under the Transfer of Property Act, and the transfer could not operate without registration. The contention that Mahomedan personal law or Section 37 of the Bengal, N.W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act displaced the registration requirement was rejected, as the arrangement was viewed as a civil contract with dower as the price. The challenge to the plaintiff's title therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a deed transferring immovable property in exchange for dower required registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the transaction was saved from that requirement by personal law or Section 37 of the Bengal, N.W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887.

Analysis: The transaction was treated as a Hibabilewaz and not as a pure gift. On its true character, it amounted to a sale of immovable property for consideration and therefore fell within the rule requiring a registered instrument where the property value exceeded one hundred rupees. The plea that Mahomedan personal law excluded the operation of the statutory registration requirement was rejected, as the marriage-related arrangement was viewed as a civil contract having the incidents of a sale, with dower constituting the price.

Conclusion: Registration was mandatory, the personal-law contention failed, and the challenge to the plaintiff's title was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not sustainable because the transfer of immovable property in consideration of dower could not take effect without registration.

---