The validity of a gift deed against an unregistered MOU and the requirement of possession for a valid gift of immovable property.

JUDGMENT :

Yogesh Khanna, J.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-3/North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned 'Trial Court') in CS No.1506/2016 whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for possession, permanent injunction, and damages/ mesne profits was decreed in favour of respondent.

2. The brief facts which culminated into filing of this appeal, as alleged by the appellant are the respondent had filed this suit on the premise she is an owner of ground and first floor, admeasuring 75 square yards each, of property bearing No.D-12, Lord Krishna Road, Adharsh Nagar, Delhi - 110033(hereinafter referred as the 'subject property') by virtue of a registered gift deed executed by Smt. Bimla Jain in her favour on 05.07.2014. The appellant herein, her sister in law (Bhabhi) was permitted to live in the subject property at the sweet will of the mother of the respondent and the respondent has been requesting the appellant to vacate the premises, but since she had refused to vacate, the respondent has filed the abovesaid suit for possession, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month for unauthorised use and occupation of the subject property by the appellant herein.

3. The appellant in her written statement before learned Trial Court had taken an objection that Smt. Bimla Jain, her mother-in-law had executed a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) dated 07.02.2013, duly attested on 27.02.2013 wherein it was agreed the entire property shall be demolished and shall be reconstructed through a builder, with a stilt parking upto the third floor and the appellant would get an ownership of the entire upper ground floor and first floor with apportioned stilt parking along with other terms and conditions. It was also alleged the appellant came into possession of the subject property as per the MOU dated 07.02.2013 and thereafter, Smt. Bimla Jain had no right or authority to execute any alleged Gift Deed of the ground and first floor of the suit property and hence the Gift Deed is a void document as she was also not in possession of the subject property and could not have handed over such possession of the subject property to the respondent herein by executing the Gift Deed dated 05.07.2014. Hence such deed is not a valid document, per law.

4. The respondent in her replication had asserted that on enquiries made from her mother, she was told the document viz MOU dated 07.02.2013 was got executed from her by executing undue influence and coercion. The relations between her mother (Bimla Jain) with the appellant (Babita Jain) and Sanjay Jain, husband of the appellant were strained. Bimla Jain was threatened by her daughter-in-law (appellant) of implicating her in a false dowry case if she would not execute such MOU. Even the contents thereof were never read to her mother and after execution of the MOU, the appellant had disgracefully turned her mother-in-law out of subject property. Heard.

5. Admittedly such MOU is unregistered. Whether it would confer any right upon the appellant in the subject property or if it would be legally enforceable is yet another issue. Admittedly Bimla Jain was an erstwhile owner of the suit property and she continued to be so till she had executed the Gift Deed in favour of respondent, whereinafter the respondent had become an absolute owner of the subject property. The Gift Deed has been proved as Ex.PW1/1. The MOU has also been proved as Ex.DW1/1.

6. I have also gone through the evidence led by the parties before learned Trial Court. The respondent has examined two witnesses viz herself as PW1 and an official witness from the Office of Sub Registrar as PW2 to prove the execution of the Gift Deed Ex.PW1/1. On the other hand, the appellant had examined herself and proved the MOU as Ex.DW1/1.

7. The learned Trial Court on perusal of the pleadings as also the e