Completed gift requires actual transfer and acceptance; legacy satisfaction and damdupat interest treatment were upheld.

Book entries alone did not complete a gift unless the money was actually transferred, accepted, and placed beyond the donor's control; on that basis, the alleged ceremonial gifts to Mahadevi failed. The house purchase was treated as having been made in discharge of Mahadevi's legacy and as part satisfaction of that legacy, and the evidence supporting that inference was held admissible. A claim advanced on a business-course-of-dealing basis could not later deny its contractual character to resist the interest calculation, so the damdupat rule applied to the interest. The appeal failed overall, save for the limited legacy item.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the two sums said to have been credited to Mahadevi in connection with the adoption and marriage ceremonies were completed gifts; (ii) Whether the amount spent on the house was paid out of the legacy due to Mahadevi and constituted part satisfaction of that legacy; (iii) Whether the rule of damdupat could govern the interest allowed on the claim.

Issue (i): Whether the two sums said to have been credited to Mahadevi in connection with the adoption and marriage ceremonies were completed gifts.

Analysis: The entries in the books were mere account entries and did not by themselves establish that money had been actually transferred, accepted, or placed beyond the donor's control. There was no evidence that Mahadevi received the money, operated upon it, or otherwise completed acceptance of the alleged gifts. The surrounding circumstances showed that Brijcomari continued to control the accounts and could alter or cancel the entries at will, which was inconsistent with completed transfer of ownership.

Conclusion: The alleged gifts were not completed, and this claim failed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount spent on the house was paid out of the legacy due to Mahadevi and constituted part satisfaction of that legacy.

Analysis: The surrounding evidence supported the inference that the house purchase was made in discharge of the legacy obligation rather than from the inchoate gifts. The solicitors' evidence showed that the title was investigated and the purchase carried through in furtherance of an intended investment of the legacy. The objection that this evidence was inadmissible under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act was rejected.

Conclusion: The house purchase was treated as part satisfaction of the legacy, and this claim succeeded for the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the rule of damdupat could govern the interest allowed on the claim.

Analysis: The claim was advanced on the footing of a business course of dealing under which the amounts were treated as invested in commercial transactions. Having relied on that basis, the appellant could not disown its contractual character when the interest calculation was made. On that footing, the rule of damdupat was applicable to the interest.

Conclusion: The application of the damdupat rule to the interest allowed was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed overall, with the appellant succeeding only on the limited legacy item and otherwise not displacing the findings against him.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere book entry does not complete a gift unless there is actual transfer and acceptance, and a claim founded on a business accounting basis cannot later be repelled by denying the contractual character of the transaction for purposes of interest.

---