VYA WASTHA”-DARPANA. 643 it, then, on the death of the assignor, the assignee cannot legally sue the latter donee for the property. Should the assignee have fulfilled the injunctions preseribed in the deed, he is entitied to the assignor's whole property, excepting that part which was given to the latter donee. Q. 4. A peson having made a gift of his real and personal property to another, executed a deed to that effect. In this case, is he (the donor) competent to retain the gift in his own possession for the period of fifteen or twenty years? R. 4. The donor is incompetent to keep the gift in his own possession. This is a received maxim. . Calcutta Court of Appeal, March 3rd, 1808. Govindram Misra versus Kishore Lal Sukal. Mac. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. 8, Case l. pp. 207—208. Q. A widow of the fourth class who had no son, having reserved some immovable property left by her husband for her own maintenance, disposed of the romainder by a deed of gift in favour of her husband's brother's sons, her own daughter's son being present at the time, and not objecting. Fifteen years after the gift, she sold the property (which had been already given) to a stranger, and the deed of sale was attested by her daughter's son. In this case, which of these transactions should be upheld 7 - R. It may be inferred that the donor’s daughter's son consented to the gift, from his making no objection at the time, or during the period of fifteen Years subsequently to the gift. The gift, therefore, should be consided valid and binding. The sale which was witnessed by the daughter's son cannot be censidered complete, for there existed no right in the widow over the property sold. Both gist and sale are the means of the extinction of property. Here the first act, in other words, the gift, shall prevail. e o Authorities:– The following are the texts of NA RADA, KATvAхANA, and VRIш AspATI :-“ If a man, having bailed or pledged a thing to one person, pledge or sell it to another, the first act shall prevail.” “In all other contested matters, the latest act shall prevail; but in the case of a pledge, a gift, or a sale, the prior contract has the greatest force.” Maen. lI. I,. Vol. II. Ch. 11. Case 25, p. 315. Q: A landed proprietor sold his estate to the plaintiff’s father, and he executed a deed of sale for the same in the purchaser's favour; but, when the sale was contracted, the estate was under a mortgage, on which account the seller was unable to deliver the property sold into the purchaser's possession. Five years after the transaction, the vendor sold the same estate to the defendant, and, having redeemed the mortgage with the purchase money, delivered it to the defendant (the second vendee), who is still in possession of the estate. In this ease, will the property in question revert to the first purchaser, or will it remain with the second one? R. If a rerson having sold his lands to one individual, again sell the same property to another person, the first purchaser is entitled to the property. This is consistent with the general opinion.*
- “In all other contested matters, the latest act shall prevail; but, in the case of a pledge, a gift, or a sale, the prior contract has the greatest force.” It may be objected that, according to this doctrine,
A gift cannot be retained in the hands of the donor. Prior gist invalidates subsequent sale after the lapse of fifteen years. A sale of mortgaged property is valid, and becomes complete oli discharging the incumbrance.
