VYAVASTHA”-DARPANA. 633 o 362 The donor's right in the property, given, does not cease to exist unles. Vyavasthá it be accepted by the donee. - I. Although the donor’s right may cease by relinquishment, yet as the gift is incomplete without acceptance by the donee, and as in such case it is said to be void, the donor's right again accrues. So NA-RADA —“When a man desires to recover a thing which was not duly given, it is called ‘subtraction of what has been given;’ (and this is) a title of administrative justice.” RAGlius ANDANA in Shuddhitatica. Authoritics II. When a donor makes a gift to a person (absent) with assurance that the donation will be accepted by him, the donee's right accrues thereto, but if it be known that the gift would not be accepted by the donee, the donor's right is not extinguished. Sri Krishna’s Comment on the Dayabhaga. 363 In the case of a conditional gift the right of the donor is not extinguished Vyavasthā nor does that of the donee accrue unless the condition made be fulfilled. 364 If two (adverse) parties claim a property upon the allegation of gift, and Vyavasthas if it be not known whose title is of prior date, then he of them is entitled (to it) who proves his possession ; but if there be no possession of either of the parties, then he is entitled to it to whom the gift is proved to have been previously made. I. “A title (a) is more powerful evidence than possession unaccompanied by hereditary suc- Authority cession. Where there is not the least possession, there a title is not weighty.” JA on YAvai.kva. - See Maen. H. L. vol. I. pp. 212–217.
- But such is the case only, when of these two the priority is undistinguishable; but when it is ascertained which is tirst in point of date, and which posterior, then the simple prior title affords the stronger ovidence. Or the interpretation of the text, “A title is more powerful than possession unacconipanied by hereditary succession: where there is not the least possession, thero a title is not weighty,” may be as follows:–In the case of the first acquirer, if a title be proved by witnesses, it is of greater weight than possession unaccompanicd by hereditary succession. Again, possession accompanied by hereditary succession, vested in the fourth descendant, is more weighty than a title proved by document; but in the case of an intermediate (claimant.) a title accompanied with even a small degree of possession is better than a title destitute of possession. This has been expressly declared by NA’RADA : “For the first, gift is a cause; for an intermediate (claimant) possession with a title; but long and hereditary possession alone, is also a good cause.” Mista kahara'. See Macn. H. L. vol. I. p. 219. Such is also the opiniom of RaqrtUNANpAN.v.. Sçe Vyavaha`ra¢aęica.
