Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
N. Thajudeen – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013
Decided On : 24-10-2024
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 126 – Revocation of gift-deed – Gift is liable to be revoked in a case where it is in nature of a contract which could be rescinded – Gift under consideration is not in form of a contract and contract, if any, is not liable to be rescinded – In present case, there is no agreement between parties for revocation of gift deed wholly or in part or at mere will of donor – There is no stipulation in gift deed that if suit property is not so utilised, gift would stand revoked or would be revoked at discretion of donor – None of exceptions permitting revocation of gift deed stands attracted in present case – Gift deed, which was validly made, could not have been revoked in any manner – Revocation deed is void ab initio and is of no consequence which has to be ignored – Once it is held that gift deed was validly executed resulting in absolute transfer of title in favour of plaintiff-respondent, same is not liable to be revoked – As such, revocation deed is meaningless especially for the purposes of calculating period of limitation for instituting suit for declaration. (Paras 15, 16 and 20)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 of Schedule – Title declaratory suit – Limitation period – Suit for declaration of right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsists – When in a suit for declaration of title, further relief is claimed in addition to mere declaration, relief of declaration would only be an ancillary one and for the purposes of limitation, it would be governed by relief that has been additionally claimed – Further relief claimed in suit is for recovery of possession based upon title and as such its limitation would be 12 years in terms of Article 65 of Schedule to Limitation Act – Though limitation for filing suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article 58 of Schedule to the Limitation Act but for recovery of possession based upon title, limitation is 12 years from the date possession of defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of Schedule to Limitation Act – Suit for relief of possession was not actually barred and as such court of first instance could not have dismissed entire suit as barred by time – Judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 22, 23, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff-respondent, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, instituted suit for declaration of its title over suit property. Appellate Court reversed judgment and order of court of first instance and decreed the suit. Second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed on 11.01.2011 by High Court
Findings of Court:
In totality of facts and circumstances of case, no error or illegality on part of first appellate court and the High Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Ms. T. Archana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, learned counsel for the respondent were heard at length.
2. The plaintiff-respondent, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, instituted a suit for declaration of its title over the suit property measuring about 3750 square feet comprising in Survey No. 16/1 situated in Kotlambakkam Panchayat, District Cuddalore and for recovery of its possession. The said suit was filed on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 05.03.1983 allegedly executed by the defendant-appellant which was said to have been accepted by the plaintiff-respondent.
3. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide Judgment and order dated 23.08.1994 primarily on the ground that the alleged gift deed was not valid as it was never accepted and acted upon. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the plaintiff- respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was allowed vide Judgment and order dated 05.08.1997. The appellate Court reversed the judgment and order of the court of first instance and decreed the suit. The second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed on 11.01.2011 by the High Court. In decreeing the suit, the gift was held to be valid with a finding that it was acted upon and accepted and as such in the absence of any clause in the gift deed authorizing revocation, it could not have been revoked as alleged vide revocation deed dated 17.08.1987.
4. The delay of 207 days in filing the Special Leave Petition was condoned and the leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 05.08.2013. Thus, the civil appeal has come up for consideration before us.
5. The moot question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the registered gift deed dated 05.03.1983 was duly acted upon and accepted and is a valid document which continue to exist despite its revocation on 17.08.1987 as the donor had not reserved the right to revoke the same.
6. The registered gift deed dated 05.03.1983 is Exhibit A-1. It has been executed by the defendant-appellant. A perusal of the gift deed reveals that the donor has gifted the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for the purposes of manufacturing of Khadi Lungi and Khadi Yarn etc. with the condition that the plaintiff-respondent shall not transfer the suit property for its own self-interest. The gift deed stipulates that neither the donor nor his legal heirs have any right or interest or will continue to have any right or interest in the suit property from the time and date of the gift deed. The gift deed further states that the gift is with full consent of the donor and that from the date of the gift itself, the plaintiff-respondent accepts the suit property for the use as aforesaid.
7. A simple and complete reading of the aforesaid gift deed would reveal that the gift is absolute with no right reserved for its revocation in any contingency. The only purpose stipulated therein is that the property gifted shall be used for manufacturing Khadi Lungi and Khadi Yarn etc.
8. It is worth noting that the gift deed itself states that from the date of the gift deed the suit property is accepted by the plaintiff-respondent for the purpose of manufacturing Khadi Lungi and Khadi Yarn etc. which duly proves that the gift was accepted. It was also acted upon as pursuant thereof the plaintiff-respondent had applied for mutation to the revenue authorities. In addition to the above, the plaintiff-respondent issued a memo on 16.09.1983, Exhibit A-4 which also proves that the possession of the suit property was taken over and that it proceeded to raise construction thereon.
9. Exhibits A-2 to A-4 prove that the possession of the suit property was taken over by the plaintiff-respondent on the date of the gift itself which is sufficient evidence that the gift was acted upon and accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent, pursuant to the aforesaid gift deed and its acce
(1) Revocation of gift-deed – Gift is liable to be revoked in a case where it is in nature of a contract which could be rescinded.(2) Suit for declaration of right cannot be held to be barred so long....
The absence of essential elements for a valid gift deed under Mohammedan law led to the dismissal of the suit due to limitations.
The Appellate Court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, failing which the judgment is subject to remand for re-evaluation.
Amendments to pleadings are permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC if they do not change the nature of the suit and are necessary for justice, even if filed after a delay.
A registered gift deed cannot be unilaterally revoked; cancellation requires judicial intervention to be valid.
A registered gift deed cannot be revoked or cancelled unilaterally without the consent of the donee. Such unilateral cancellation deed does not bind the donee.
The court established that amendments to pleadings are permissible to ensure justice and effective adjudication, provided they do not introduce time-barred claims or fundamentally change the nature o....
The court established that an unconditional gift deed may be revoked if the intent behind the gift is not fulfilled, especially when fraud or misrepresentation is involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
