Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2012
Decided on : 14-11-2024
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 2 – Gift deed / Settlement deed – ‘Consideration’ need not always be in monetary terms – It can be in other forms as well – In present case, transfer of property in favour of daughter of coparcener was in recognition of fact that she had been taking care of transferors and would continue to do so while also using the same to carry out charitable work – High Court has erred in taking such a constricted view of ‘consideration’, especially taking note of the fact that this settlement was between members of a family – It was also to be demonstrated by High Court that reversal of concurrent findings by Courts below was justified – Daughter of coparcener (now her heirs) is indeed entitled to 2/3rd share in property – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and findings of Court below restored. (Paras 15.4, 15.5, 16 and 17)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – A substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for maintainability of a second appeal, shall be, (a) Not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent; (b) Material bearing on the decision of case; and (c) New point raised for first time before High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of matter – It will depend on facts of each case.” (Para 16.3)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against Judgment and order of High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd April, 2009 passed in S.A.No.10 of 2005. Judgment impugned in turn was passed in a first appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by Additional District Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court which confirmed judgment and decree Dated 13th September, 2001 of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in O.S.
Findings of Court:
Appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and findings of Court below, are restored.
Result : Appeal allowed
Key Points: - 'Consideration' for a gift deed or settlement deed need not always be monetary; it can be in other forms [p_15.4] (!) . - A transfer of property in favor of a daughter was recognized as valid consideration due to her care for the transferors and promise of future care and charitable work [p_15.4] (!) . - The High Court erred in taking a constricted view of 'consideration', especially in a family settlement [p_15.5] (!) . - The High Court should have demonstrated justification for reversing concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts [p_15.5] (!) . - A substantial question of law for a second appeal must not be previously settled by law, must have material bearing on the decision, and cannot be a new point raised for the first time unless it goes to the root of the matter [p_16.3] (!) (!) (!) . - The settlement deed was executed in recognition of the daughter's care for the transferors and her promise to continue doing so and to carry out charitable work [p_15.4] (!) . - The High Court's reversal of concurrent findings by the lower courts was not justified (!) (!) . - The daughter of the coparcener (now her heirs) is entitled to a 2/3rd share in the property [p_15.5] (!) . - The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the findings of the lower courts were restored [p_15.5] (!) . - The appeal was allowed (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd April, 2009 passed in S.A.No.10 of 2005. The judgment impugned in turn was passed in a first appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by the Additional District Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.35 of 2001 which confirmed the judgment and decree Dated 13th September, 2001 of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in O.S.No.89 of 1995.
2. The brief facts, putting the controversy in context are :-
2.1 One Balu Reddy, was survived by his three sons viz., Venkatarama Reddy, Venkata Reddy @ Pakki Reddy1[In certain places the record reflects alias of Venkata Reddy as Bachi Reddy Or Bakki Reddy] and Chenga Reddy2[In certain places the record reflects alias of Chenga Reddy as Renga Reddy]. They enjoyed the property in question as coparceners to Hindu joint family property. The first of the three siblings, Venkatarama Reddy died leaving behind his son Markandeya Reddy as legal heir; the second, Venkata Reddy @ Pakki Reddy died leaving behind his daughter Govindammal as legal heir; and the third brother Chenga Reddy died issueless, with each of them having 1/3rd share in the undivided property. Chenga Reddy transferred his share in favour of Govindammal in the year 1963 by way of a settlement deed dated 5th May, 1963. It is urged that thereafter, Govindammal, enjoyed uninterrupted possession of the property to the extent of 2/3rd.
2.2 In 1986 the original settlement deed in favour of Govindammal was given to Markandeya Reddy to bring into effect the 2/3rd share of Govindammal in the official records since at that time no partition by metes and bounds was effected and without prejudice to their rights, they had been cultivating random, separate portion(s) of the land. Such change was, allegedly never effected and neither were the documents returned to her. As such the suit for partition was filed on 30th March, 1995.
2.3. Plaint
In the plaint following prayers were made :-
(9) The plaintiffs therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree.
(a) for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share from out of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs and to put the plaintiffs in possession of the same.
(b) directing the defendant to pay cost of the suit and
(c) such other reliefs as this Honourable court may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice accordingly.”
2.4 Written Statement
In the written statement filed by the original defendants, it has been averred that in the year 1984 the Panchayat decided on a division between the parties giving one-half of the property to both. Patta was not separated for 48-78 acres. His right and title extend to 25½ acres.
Survey No.201/1 was incorrectly included in the name of the defendant, and when change thereof, was applied for by Govindammal, the same was carried out without any objection. Survey Nos.201/L and 201/B were incorrectly shown against the name of Govindammal and actually belonged to the defendant.
There is a lake on the property to which the defendant had half right.
The plaintiff is not in joint possession of properties and is not entitled to the relief of partition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
3. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
2. Whether the suit properties are properties of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the settlement deed executed in the year 1963 have been brought into force?
4. Whether the partition made in the year 1964 is genuine?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed?
6. What are the other relief?”
Having considered the first four issues, the Court, in answer to the fifth issue, concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to 2/3rd share of the property. The same was awarded with costs.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPE
Gift deed / Settlement deed – ‘Consideration’ need not always be in monetary terms – It can be in other forms as well.
![N. Kalavathy VS Sriramulu Naidu [deceased] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1817](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_2.png)
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.
Gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in coparcenery properties as void - Coparcener can make a gift of his undivided interest in coparcener property to another coparcener or to a stranger....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the validity of settlement and sale deeds, the nature of the suit property, and the right of pre-emptive purchase.
Family arrangements promoting peace and preventing disputes are upheld; oral partitions must be substantiated by clear evidence to be enforceable.
Registered settlement deed proved under Evidence Act Section 68 proviso absent specific denial of execution; certified copy admissible if original lost; partition suit barred without cancelling deed.
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
