Back
High Court Of Calcutta
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY
GORACHAND MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
MALABIKA DUTTA - Respondent
S. A. 266 Of 1996
Decided On : 10/03/2001
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - S. 122 - GIFT - Acceptance of gift by donee during the lifetime of donor - Requirements - Implied acceptance - Exercise of ownership rights by donee - Mutation of name in Municipal records - Initiation of legal proceedings to prevent interference with ownership rights.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Malabika Dutta filed a suit against defendant Gorachand Mukherjee for recovery of possession of the suit premises after vacating the defendant therefrom. The suit property was gifted to Shankar Banerjee, the father of the plaintiff, by Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi on 1/09/1952. Prativa Devi, the mother of the defendant, was given life interest for staying in the suit premises by the said deed of gift. After the death of Shankar Banerjee, his widow Pulama and son Bhaskar transferred their shares in the suit property to Malabika. Prativa Devi died on 9/09/1989 and the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the plaintiff's right to the suit property and claiming acquisition of title by way of adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit holding that the defendant did not acquire any title in the suit premises by way of adverse possession and that the defendant was a licensee in respect of the suit premises. The lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendant preferred a second appeal to the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the condition of the deed of gift has been violated in view of transfer of the shares of other heirs of Shankar Banerjee in favour of the plaintiff Malabika. 2. Whether by operation of law i.e. in view of S. 14 of Hindu Succession Act, limited right/interest of Pratima @ Prativa Devi ripened into an absolute title. 3. Whether the deed of gift became void on account of non-compliance of the specific conditions mentioned in S. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Acceptance of gift by donee during the lifetime of donor is one of the requirements under S. 122 of Transfer of Property Act. Acceptance may be express or implied. In the instant case, the donee exercised his right of ownership by filing a Civil suit against the defendant, claiming ownership right in respect of the suit property on the basis of the deed of gift. The donee also mutated his name in the Municipal records and initiated legal proceedings to prevent interference with his ownership rights. Therefore, it can be concluded that the donee duly accepted the deed of gift from the donor and acted on the basis of the same. The requirements of S. 122 of Transfer of Property Act have been fully complied with. 2. The limited right/interest of Prativa Devi in the suit premises did not ripen into an absolute title under S. 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act. There was no pre-existing right of maintenance in favour of Prativa Devi and the right of possession to the suit property was not given in lieu of maintenance. Therefore, S. 14 (2) of Hindu Succession Act is applicable in the instant case. Under S. 14 (2), the life interest of Prativa Devi would not ripen into an absolute title. 3. No conditions mentioned under S. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act have been violated. The transfer of shares by the widow and son of donee Shankar in favour of the plaintiff was not considered as violation of any terms and conditions of the deed of gift by the lower appellate court. In view of the provision of S. 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, no such conditions of restraint can be imposed on a transfer of property.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) - The Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10/01/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in title Appeal No. 106 of 1995 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Fourth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 18 of 1992.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who is the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit premises after vacating the defendant/appellant therefrom. The essential facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly summerised hereinafter. the father of the plaintiff acquired the suit premises by way of gift executed by Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi on 1/09/1952. the said Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi executed deed of gift in respect of the suit property in favour of their nephew, Shankar Banerjee, the father of the plaintiff herein.
( 3 ) PRATIVA Devi, the mother of the defendant/ appellant herein was given life interest for staying in the suit premises by the said deed of gift. In the year 1970, the father of the plaintiff, Shankar Banerjee, died leaving his widow, Pulama Banerjee and his son, Bhaskar and daughter, Malabika. Pulama and Bhaskar transferred their shares in the suit property by executing a sale deed in favour of Malabika on 25/05/1981. Prativa Devi Pratima Devi, the mother of defendant/appellant Gorachand Mukherjee died on 9/09/1989 and after his death, plaintiff Malabika Dutta served a notice upon defendant/appellant, Gorachand Mukherjee to vacate the suit premises in view of revocation of licence. It was however specifically mentioned in the said deed of gift that Gorachand Mukherjee would be allowed to remain in this suit premises in case of death of Prativa Devi before attainment of majority by said Gorachand. Since Gorachand was major at the time of death of his mother Prativa, the plaintiff asked Gorachand to vacate the suit premises since Gorachand refused to vacate the suit premises, plaintiff instituted the suit against gorachand for his eviction therefrom.
( 4 ) THE defendant/appellant appeared in the suit and contested the same by filing written statement. In the said written statement defendant/appellant denied all material allegations made against him by the plaintiff and the defendant contended that the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit property either by the said deed of gift or by way of transfer of the shares of her mother Pulama, and brother Bhaskar in her favour. The defendant/ appellant also stated in the written statement that the heirs of Shankar Banerjee did not acquire any right to transfer the suit premises to anybody as the donor specifially prohibited such transfer and mentined the same in the deed of gift. The defendant also contended that the said deed of gift was never acted upon. Defendant claimed acquisition of title in the suit premises by way of adverse possession as the said defendant claimed that he had collected rent from the tenant besides living in a portion of the suit premises.
( 5 ) LEARNED Munsif of the Trial Court upon condisering the materials and evidence on record and also analysing the pleadings of the respective parties decreed the suit holding that the defendant Gorachand, or his mother, Prativa Devi did not acquire any title in the suit premises by way of adverse possession and further held that the defendant was a licencee in respect of the suit premises. Learned Munsif also held that the transfer of shares of Bhaskar and Pulama in favour of the plaintiff Malabika did not violate any condition of the deed of gift.
( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Munsif an appeal was preferred before the Lower Appellate Court by the defendant Gorachand, but the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court after considering the arguments of both the parties and on the basis of the materials and evidence on record came to a conclusion that the learned Munsi
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
