Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
Jambulingayya Hiremath S/o Siddalingayya Hiremath – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Akkamahadevi @ Shashikala W/o Late Veeresh Hiremath – Respondent
R.S.A. Nos. 200220, 200221 of 2015
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Hindu Succession Act, 1991 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 3 and 8 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(26) - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 19 and 19(A) – Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Order XLI - Rule 27 - Separate possession and for cancellation of Gift Deed - Transfer of an immovable property - Whether plaintiff proves that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 4 are member of joint family properties - Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of share in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds - Whether plaintiff proves that gift deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of late is null and void and not binding on plaintiff - Whether defendant No. 6 proves that whether she is entitled for partition and separate possession of her share in counter claim - B schedule properties as described in written statement - Whether plaintiffs prove that they are owners and possessors of suit property - Whether plaintiffs further prove that registered deed in document in respect of suit property is illegal and null and void and as such it is not binding on them - Summary of case of plaintiff is that plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and husband of defendant No. 6 are sons of defendant No. 1 - Defendant No. 5 is daughter of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is wife of defendant No. 1 - Defendant No. 6 is daughter-in-law of defendant No. 1 since she is wife of said - Plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 are members of Hindu Joint Family - Defendant No. 5 since married after commencement of amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 1991 she is also imp leaded as a member of joint family - Defendant No. 1 owns and possesses suit schedule property which includes agricultural lands both situated in limits of Village and a house property situated at NGO’s Colony - Defendant No. 1 was Kartha of said Hindu Joint Family – Held, Perusal of pleadings makes it very clear that plaintiffs in their plaint have given complete details of said Revocation Deed with its document number date of registration date of execution and subject matter of document in detail - Original defendant in said suit was none else than Executor of said Revocation Deed himself - After his death his legal representatives were brought on record in said suit - In written statement filed by legal representatives of defendants no where they have pleaded that in absence of production of Revocation Deed they were not able to understand details and nature of document - On other hand a reading of very entire written statement clearly go to show that defendants were clearly aware of which document that was challenged in said suit and also details of said document including its nature and subject matter - After understanding issues both side parties have led their evidence in detail - As such though it is required of party to produce documents with respect to which he has sought for some declaration however in instant case in circumstances analyzed above non-production of said Revocation Deed either in its original or its certified copy in no manner has caused prejudice to interest of either of party - On other hand both side have understood nature details and contents of said document which is Revocation Deed and have contested matter in its entirety - On other hand either remanding matter to first Appellate Court to dispose of pending interlocutory application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by applicants therein or allow pending in this appeal would further procrastinate matter which Original Suit is fourteen years old already - Further it serves no purpose since interest of neither of parties has been affected by non-production of such Revocation Deed – Therefore confining to said facts and circumstances of this case court hold that trial Court was not wrong in decreeing suit without production of Revocation Deed - A contract is normally rescinded or avoided as per Sections 19 and 19 A of Contract Act - When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion fraud misrepresentation or undue influence at instance of party whose consent is so obtained - Except on aforesaid grounds a gift cannot be rescinded or revoked on any other ground - This position is specifically made clear by stating in Section 126 of Act Save as aforesaid a gift cannot be revoked - However it may also be noticed that in event case falls under Section 20 of Contract Act gift will be void ab initio and in such a situation question of avoiding it does not arise - There is no recital contained in gift deed as to happening of any specific event independent of will of donor - There is also no recital in gift deed enabling donor to revoke it on failure of donee to maintain donor or on happening of any other event - A gift deed cannot be revoked save as provided in Section 126 of Act - Circumstances under which a gift can be revoked or rescinded are already pointed out - In instant case there is no evidence to show that donor and done had agreed that on happening of any specified event independent of will of donor gift should be revoked - It is also not case that gift was vitiated or caused by fraud coercion misrepresentation or undue influence as per Section 19 and Section 19(A) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 - It is not even case of parties who are challenging gift that said gift was hit by Section 20 of Indian Contract Act – Therefore unilateral revocation of gift which falls out of ambit of Section 126 of T.P. Act as in instant case is not a valid revocation – Therefore fourth substantial question of law is answered holding that Gift Deed cannot be revoked unilaterally in instant case – Appeal is dismissed
The case primarily concerns a dispute over the validity and enforceability of a gift deed and the subsequent revocation of that gift. The plaintiff, who is a member of a Hindu joint family, challenged the legality of a registered Gift Deed executed by the donor, Sri Jambulingayya Hiremath, in favor of his eldest son, Veeresh Hiremath. The plaintiff contended that the gift deed was executed without proper authority and was invalid because the property was not in a state that permitted such a gift, particularly since a building had already been constructed on the property at the time of the gift. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the gift was valid, made out of love and affection, and that the property was the donor’s self-acquired property.
Subsequently, the donor executed a registered revocation deed, unilaterally revoking the gift, claiming that the donee was deceased at the time of revocation. The validity of this revocation was a key issue, with the courts examining whether such unilateral revocation was legally permissible under applicable laws governing gifts and property transfer. The courts analyzed the nature of the gift deed, the circumstances of its execution, and the legal provisions relating to the revocation of gifts, ultimately holding that a gift cannot be revoked unilaterally unless specific conditions, such as an agreement or a particular event, are met. Since no such conditions existed and the revocation did not fall under permissible grounds, the courts confirmed the validity of the original gift and dismissed the challenge to its validity.
The appellate courts also considered procedural issues, such as the non-production of the revocation deed in the initial proceedings, but found that the parties were aware of the document's contents and that its absence did not prejudice either side. The courts emphasized that the gift was a simple gift made out of love and affection, with no conditions for revocation attached, and that the law does not support unilateral revocation of such gifts without specific legal grounds.
In conclusion, the courts upheld the validity of the original gift deed and dismissed the challenge to its revocation, affirming that such unilateral revocation was not legally justified. The appeals were dismissed, and the original decrees confirming the gift’s validity were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
1. R.S.A. No. 200221/2015 has arisen from a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “first appellate Court”) in R.A. No. 55/2010 dated 31-03-2015, which in turn, had arisen from a common judgment and decree dated 31-03-2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Raichur in O.S. No. 31/2006 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”).
The said O.S. No. 31/2006 was filed by the plaintiffs therein against the defendants for the relief of declaration that the registered Revocation Deed No. 2409/03-04 dated 31-03-2004 pertaining to the suit house plot No. 800 and bearing Municipal No. 8-11-181/800 situated at NGO Colony, Vidyanagar, Raichur, described in plaint schedule property as illegal, null and void. A relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his men, agents, etc. claiming through him from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in and over plaint schedule house property was also sought for.
R.S.A. No. 200220/2015 has arisen from a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “first appellate Court”) in R.A. No. 58/2010 dated 31-03-2015, which in turn, had arisen from a common judgment and decree dated 31-03-2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Raichur in O.S. No. 49/2003 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”).
The said O.S. No. 49/2003 was filed by the plaintiff therein against the defendants therein for the relief of partition and separate possession and for cancellation of Gift Deed.
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 31/2006 were defendant Nos. 6 to 8 in O.S. No. 49/2003 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 49/2003 was the defendant No. 1(e) in O.S. No. 31/2006.
2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49/2003 is that, the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and late Veeresh Hiremath, the husband of defendant No. 6 are the sons of defendant No. 1-Sri. Jambulingayya Hiremath. The defendant No. 5 is the daughter of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2-Hemavathi is the wife of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 6 is the daughter-in-law of defendant No. 1, since she is the wife of said late Veeresh Hiremath. The plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 are members of the Hindu Joint Family. The defendant No. 5 since married after the commencement of amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1991, she is also impleaded as a member of the joint family. The defendant No. 1 owns and possesses the suit schedule property which includes agricultural lands in Survey No. 350, measuring 11 acres, Survey No. 856, measuring 17 Acres 18 Guntas, both situated in the limits of Anwari Village of Lingasugur Taluk and a house property bearing Municipal No. 8-11-181/800 situated at NGO’s Colony, Vidyanagar, Raichur. The defendant No. 1 was the Kartha of the said Hindu Joint Family. The said plot which is part of the Hindu property was purchased by defendant No. 1 under a registered sale Deed dated 13-05-1987. Thereafter, he constructed a building on the said plot No. 800. Except defendant Nos. 3 and 5, all other parties to the suit are in possession and enjoyment of the suit house property. Since the defendant No. 3 is working as a Government servant at Arkonam (Tamil Nadu), he resides at that place of work.
It is further the case of the plaintiffs in the said suit (O.S. No. 49/2003) that, defendant No. 1-Sri. Jambulingayya Hiremath had executed a registered Gift Deed No. 1471/99-2000 dated 09-09-1999, in favour of his eldest son - Sri. Veeresh Hiremath (since deceased) in respect of plot No. 800 unauthorisedly, having no right or authority and behind the back of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The said Gift Deed is ab initio void and illegal since on the date of execution of the Gift Deed, the said plot No. 800 was not in existence as a plot, since
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
