Point of Law: Gift Deed - Free consent - There is nothing on record to establish that amount admittedly paid by DW1 is a consideration sufficient and satisfactory for transaction covered by registered document - A registered document, plaintiff has successfully discharged her burden to rebut presumption of validity carried by that document.

JUDGMENT :

This is a case wherein Mrs.Puthiyapurayil Janaki an aged lady who is none other than the mother of the respondent herein had allegedly gifted the plaint schedule property by a deed of gift No.1406/2012 of SRO Ulickal which has been devolved on her by virtue of a Will executed by Sri.Balan Achari, and registered at S.R.O, Ulickal as 117/2010 on 28.12.2010, in favour of the respondent, who is her eldest daughter. The Suit was filed by the lady as OS No.706/2012 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur (for short the 'trial court') seeking to declare gift deed No.1406/2012 of SRO Ulickal as voidable and to cancel the same. The Suit was dismissed by the trial court directing the parties to suffer their respective costs. The aggrieved lady has preferred the appeal on hand before this Court. Parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their status before the trial court.

2. According to the lady, the Will referred to above makes it obligatory on her to arrange the funds for the marriage of her younger daughter Smt.Saritha by disposing off 10 cents of property out of the total extent bequeathed by her husband in her favour. The younger daughter being unmarried at the time of the death of her husband, finding no other resources to arrange the funds for the marriage, she accepted the offer of the defendant and her husband, to provide Rs.2,00,000/- and thus the marriage was solemnised successfully on 05.12.2012. Smt.Janaki had promised to repay the money given by the defendant by selling 10 cents of land from the total extent devolved on her, as per the Will. Efforts made by her to sell the property, turned futile exercises, as purchasers did not turn up to purchase it.

3. The defendant and her husband proposed Mrs.Janaki to execute a gift deed for 10 cents of land in defendant's favour. The proposal was acceptable to her and due to her old age and vision and hearing impairment associated with that she depended upon the defendant and her husband to get the gift deed in respect of 10 cents of property, executed. Thus, the defendant and her husband got the gift deed drafted by a scribe of their choice and got it executed. The contents of the gift deed were not made known to the lady and she was made to believe that the gift deed 1406/2012 covers only 10 cents of her property.

4. Much later to the execution of the deed as above, the defendant and her husband demanded the lady to vacate the house situated in the property and resided by her and only at that juncture she came to know that the gift deed was executed not in respect of 10 cents but in respect of the entire extent of plaint schedule property belonging to her. The defendant and her husband had played a foul play on her and caused the gift deed to be drafted and executed in such a manner and thereby made themselves the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Smt.Janaki when apprised of the foul play of the defendant was constrained to institute the suit as O.S.No.706/2012 before Sub Court, Kannur alleging fraud and misrepresentation in the matter of execution of the gift deed. It was specifically contended by her in the suit that the execution of the gift deed was without her free consent as contemplated under Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and sought to treat it as voidable and to cancel it.

5. In the written statement filed in the suit the status of the parties to the suit and the execution of Will No.117/2010 at SRO Ulickal were not disputed by the sole defendant. It was contended that cash worth Rs.3,00,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs.2,25,000/- were given to the plaintiff with a view to assist her in the conduct of the marriage of her sister and not desirous of obtaining anything in return. The plaintiff had executed the gift deed in her favour voluntarily and the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and lack of free consent are totally baseless and devoid of merits. Her father had