Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1701
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Chandrashekhar - Appellant
Versus
Rahul Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sansar Nagar, Aurangabad - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7710 & 7709 of 2009
Decided On : 05-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Deepa Kulkarni
For the Respondent: Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar
The validity of a gift deed and the maintainability of a suit based on such a deed, along with the bar of limitation, were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
judgment - challenge to dismissal of suit for permanent injunction and decree for declaration of title/ownership and recovery of possession - Sections 122, 123 of Transfer of Property Act, Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act - Validity of gift deed, maintainability of suit, bar of limitation
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction against Municipal Council, followed by another suit against respondent for perpetual injunction. Respondent filed suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. Appellant claimed ownership based on sale deeds, while respondent claimed ownership based on a gift deed.
Finding of the Court:
High Court concluded that the gift deed was valid and conveyed title to the respondent. It held that the suit of the respondent was not barred by limitation and was maintainable. The rejection of respondent's application for impleadment in appellant's suit for injunction did not bar the suit for declaration and possession.
Issues: Validity of gift deed, maintainability of respondent's suit, bar of limitation
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the validity of the gift deed and its compliance with statutory prerequisites. It also considered the maintainability of the respondent's suit and the bar of limitation, concluding that the gift deed was valid and the respondent's suit was maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the findings of the High Court were upheld.
ORDER :
1. These appeals pose a challenge to the judgment and order dated 23/24.11.2006 rendered by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad thereby dismissing the RSA No.166 of 1986 and RSA No.379 of 1998, both preferred by the appellant herein.
2. In essence, by the determination of the High Court as above, suit being RCS No.539 of 1979 filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction was dismissed and the suit being RCS No.174 of 1985 instituted by the respondent for declaration of its title/ownership in the suit property and recovery of possession thereof has been decreed.
3. We have heard Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The background facts leading to the appeals before the High Court need a brief narration to comprehend the issues seeking adjudication. The appellant, claiming to have purchased the suit property from one Sonaji Ganoji Sonavane (hereafter referred to as “Sonaji”) by registered sale deed dated 18.01.1974, which was followed by another sale deed dated 11.04.1978 due to an alteration in the layout of the area, instituted a suit being RCS No.442 of 1974 against the then Municipal Council, Aurangabad to invalidate a notice issued by the latter requiring demolition of the basement on the suit land. In this suit, the appellant prayed for a declaration that the order/notice of demolition was null and void. He also prayed for permanent injunction against the Municipal Council from demolition of the structure as mentioned in the said notice. No written statement was filed by the Municipal Council in the suit and the evidence of the witnesses of the appellant also remained unrefuted in absence of any cross-examination on its behalf. The suit was decreed on 26.06.1980 and the Municipal Council was permanently restrained from demolishing the property/structure as referred to in the notice questioned in the suit.
5. The appellant next filed suit being RCS No.539 of 1979 against the respondent herein alleging that the latter on 18.09.1979 with the help of some labourers had started excavation works in the suit property by encroaching thereupon. Incidentally this suit too was for a decree for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent, its office bearers etc., from causing obstruction or interference in the enjoyment and possession of the suit property by the appellant.
6. In its written statement in the said suit, the respondent/Trust denied the ownership and possession of the appellant and asserted that Sonaji, who admittedly was the owner of the suit property had conveyed the same to it (the respondent/Trust) by registered gift deed dated 29.08.1973 and had also delivered the possession thereof to it, which was duly accepted by the Trust and that it had been in possession thereof since then. The respondent/Trust repudiated the sale deeds dated 18.01.1974 and 11.04.1978 to be null and void and of no consequence in law as on the date of purported execution thereof, the vender Sonaji had no subsisting title or interest in the suit property in the face of the gift deed dated 29.08.1973, executed earlier in point of time. In categorical terms, the respondent/Trust pleaded that it was a Registered Society having its Registration No.38/1973 and was also registered as a public trust with the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Noticeably there was neither any replication nor any rejoinder by the appellant controverting, in particular the averment, that the respondent/Trust was a registered society and was also a registered public trust with the registration number as mentioned in its written statement. This suit was after a regular trial decreed on 31.01.1984 for permanent injunction against which the respondent/Trust preferred appeal being RCA No.49 of 1984 in the Court of III, Additional District Judge, Aurangabad.
7. Subsequent thereto, the respondent/Trust filed a suit being RCS No.174 of 1985 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad praying f
