Oral gift of movable property requires delivery or registration and acceptance; reopening settled accounts may be outside civil cognizance.

An oral gift of movable property was ineffective where there was no completed transfer by delivery or registered instrument and no reliable proof of acceptance by or on behalf of the donee during the donor's lifetime. A claim seeking to reopen a deceased person's accounts against an agent was treated as outside civil cognizance where it in substance fell within the special jurisdiction governing landlord-agent disputes, although a claim for identified specific balances could still be maintainable. The broader accounting claim was also regarded as barred by limitation, as such a challenge accrued on the donor's death and had to be brought within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged oral gift of the cash balance and undisposed savings standing to the credit of Rani Ram Kumari in favour of the plaintiff was proved and valid in law; (ii) whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for reopening the accounts and recovery of the alleged sums; (iii) whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the alleged oral gift of the cash balance and undisposed savings standing to the credit of Rani Ram Kumari in favour of the plaintiff was proved and valid in law

Analysis: A gift of movable property required transfer and acceptance, and the transfer had to be effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery. An alleged gift by word of mouth was found inherently improbable where the connected transaction relating to the villages had been reduced into a registered instrument, yet the supposed cash balance was not brought into the plaintiff's account. The account books accepted as genuine did not show such transfer, and the oral evidence was not reliable. The alleged savings could not be treated as having vested in the donor so as to pass by mere direction to the defendant, nor was there proof of acceptance by or on behalf of the plaintiff during the donor's lifetime.

Conclusion: The alleged oral gift was not proved and did not validly pass title to the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for reopening the accounts and recovery of the alleged sums

Analysis: A claim limited to recovery of specific sums standing to the credit of the deceased could lie in civil court, but a claim which in substance sought to reopen the accounts of the deceased's estate against an agent fell within the special jurisdiction relating to such landlord-agent disputes. The challenge to the historic accounts was therefore outside civil cognizance, while only a claim to identified specific balances could be maintained there.

Conclusion: The suit, so far as it sought reopening of the accounts, was not cognizable by the civil court.

Issue (iii): whether the suit was barred by limitation

Analysis: A claim for specific sums standing to the credit of the deceased was not barred, but a claim to reopen the accounts of the deceased's estate accrued on the death of the deceased and had to be brought within the prescribed period. The broader accounting claim was brought beyond time.

Conclusion: The claim for reopening the accounts was time-barred, while the claim for specific sums was not barred on the footing stated.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the plaintiff failed to establish a valid oral gift and the wider accounting claim could not be maintained in the civil court and was also barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A movable property gift is ineffective unless there is a completed transfer by delivery or registered instrument and acceptance by or on behalf of the donee during the donor's lifetime, and a claim that in substance reopens an agent's settled accounts cannot be pursued in civil court outside the special jurisdiction and limitation applicable to such claims.

---