Financial assistance provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant did not constitute consideration money and did not invalidate the Deed of Gift, which was presumed to be executed out of love and affection.

Tapen Sen, J.

This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2007 passed by Sri Surjendu Biswas, Addl. District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, Dist. 24 parganas in Title Appeal No. 273 of 1999 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 13.8.1999 passed by Sri S.K. Halder, learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, 6th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 75 of 1995.

2. Title Suit No. 75 of 1995 was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff, Renu Bhandari against Krishna Chandra Das, her father praying for a Decree of Eviction evicting him from the Suit property as well as a Decree for Damages @ Rs. 50/- per Diem w.e.f. 1.10.1995 till he was evicted. She also prayed for a Decree for costs, injunction etc.

According to the Plaintiff/Appellant, the suit property was gifted to her by her father, the Defendant (being the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents herein), by a registered Deed of Gift dated 14.9.1992. She got delivery of khas possession but, was however requested by the Defendant that till he was able to make alternative arrangements, his wife and his unmarried daughter be allowed to live in the suit premises. He however told her that he would be making alternative arrangements shortly.

The Plaintiff gave details regarding the gift by stating that she had rendered financial help to the defendant and his wife towards their maintenance since he had no source of income. Moreover, the Defendant, his wife and his son were entangled in a murder case and at that time, the Plaintiff had paid all litigation costs and therefore, the Defendant, out of gratitude, gifted the suit property to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, upon being requested by the Defendant as above, allowed him to live in the suit premises along with his wife and unmarried daughter for a period of 6 months on the assurance given by him that he would make alternative arrangements for his residence. Accordingly, the defendant started living in the suit premises on leave and licence basis but without paying any licence fee to the Plaintiff from September, 1992 and he was allowed to live on till March, 1993.

On the expiry of March, 1993, the Plaintiff asked the defendant to stand by his commitments and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff by shifting elsewhere but the defendant requested her for some more time and therefore, the Plaintiff again allowed him to stay on for a further period of 6 months on the assurance that by September, 1993 he will vacate the suit premises and would not request for any further extension. The Plaintiff/Appellant stated that since the defendant was her father, she, out of pity, allowed him to live in the suit premises along with his wife and unmarried daughter on leave and licence without any licence fee upto September 1993.

After the expiry of 30.9.1993, when the Plaintiff asked the defendant to shift and give delivery of possession, the Plaintiff, to her surprise, again wanted some more time.

3. The Plaintiff, realising the ill motive of the defendant, revoked the licence on 1.10.1993 and asked him to vacate the suit premises. The defendant however, did not vacate and therefore, continued to occupy the premises as a trespasser w.e.f. 1.10.1993.

The Plaintiff/Appellant therefore, filed the aforesaid Title Suit on 5.9.1995 praying for a Decree of Eviction as stated above.

4. The defendant contested the Suit and denied all allegations made in the plaint. He contended, inter alia, that the Suit premises is a three-storied building and that the entire 2nd floor consisting of two rooms, Varanda one "Thakur ghar" and roof are occupied by the Defendant. The ground floor and the 1st floor are under occupation of tenants. He also contended that the plaintiff had no possession in the suit building. He also denied that the suit property was gifted to the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff, being his married daughter and taking advantage of his old age, had obtained the Deed of Gift beyond his will.