Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
Seena V, W/o. The Late Premkumar - Appellant
Versus
Rohini, W/o. N.Raveendran - Respondents
Mat.Appeal No. 1097 of 2014
Decided on : 20-03-2025
(A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 122 - Family Law - Appeal against Family Court decree - The petitioner-wife sought to declare a Cancellation Deed null and void and claim her half-right over property after her husband's death - The Family Court partially decreed her petition, granting some claims while rejecting others. (Paras 1 - 5 )
(B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The court examined whether the petitioner proved the entrustment of money and gold ornaments to the respondents and the acceptance of the Settlement Deed by the husband during his lifetime. (Paras 7 - 10 )
(C) Gifts - Validity of Cancellation - The court ruled that a gift must be accepted during the donee's lifetime; the Cancellation Deed executed after the donee's death was valid. (Paras 11 - 16 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-wife married Premkumar in 2010 and claimed misappropriation of her share and gold ornaments by her in-laws after his death in 2011. The Family Court partially granted her claims but rejected others. (Paras 2 - 5 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner proved her entitlement to half of the property under the Settlement Deed, which was validly executed and could not be cancelled posthumously. (Paras 16 - 17 )
Issues: The primary issues included whether the petitioner proved the entrustment of money and ornaments, the validity of the Settlement Deed, and the appropriateness of the Family Court's judgment. (Paras 7 - 8 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner established her claim to the property as the Settlement Deed was valid and accepted during her husband,s lifetime, and the Cancellation Deed was ineffective. (Paras 16 - 17 )
Result: The appeal is allowed in part; the petitioner,s title and possession over one-half of the property are declared.
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife before the Family Court, seeking a declaration that Ext.A5=Ext.B2 Cancellation Deed, cancelling Ext.A4=Ext.B1 Settlement Deed, is null and void, for declaration of her half right over the property, and for recovery of gold ornaments, money and movables, was decreed in part. Challenging that part of the decree which refused the reliefs sought, she is in appeal.
2. The marriage of the petitioner-wife with late Premkumar was on 11.05.2010. Premkumar died on 03.10.2011. The respondents in the original petition, who are the respondents in this appeal, are the in-laws of the petitioner-wife.
3. According to the petitioner, after her marriage with Premkumar, there was “Adukalakanal”, a customary function, on 13.05.2010. On that date, the 1st respondent(father-in-law) was entrusted with an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards petitioner's share. On 11.06.2010, a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was entrusted with the husband towards her share. At the time of marriage, the petitioner had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments; out of the same, 2.5 sovereigns are with her. The remaining gold ornaments and the money were misappropriated by the respondents. There is a further claim for the value of movables allegedly entrusted at the time of marriage.
4. On 20.09.2011, respondents 1 and 2, namely, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the petitioner, executed Ext.A4=Ext.B1 Settlement Deed in favour of their son, Premkumar. On 03.10.2011, Premkumar committed suicide. On 10.10.2011, respondents 1 and 2 executed Ext.A5=Ext.B2 Cancellation Deed, cancelling Ext.A4=Ext.B1 Settlement Deed. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the Cancellation Deed is null and void and a declaration of her half-right over the property.
5. The trial court granted a decree for Rs.3,00,000/- paid on 11.06.2010 and for an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards the value of movables. The other claims were disallowed against which this appeal by the petitioner-wife.
6. We have heard Shri.Mohan Jacob George, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri.K. Sasikumar, the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The points that arise for determination are;
i) Does the evidence on record prove the entrustment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.05.2010, to the respondents, as claimed by the petitioner?
ii) Was the Family Court right in having rejected the claim for gold ornaments, holding that there is lack of evidence to prove the entrustment of the gold ornaments with the respondent?
iii) Is the finding of the Family Court that the petitioner has failed to prove the acceptance of Ext.A4=Ext.B1 Settlement Deed sustainable on the evidence?
iv) Does the decree and judgment of the Family Court warrant interference?
8. The marriage of the petitioner with late Premkumar, was solemnised on 11.05.2010. At the time of marriage, Premkumar was employed abroad at Abu Dhabi, UAE. It is the claim of the petitioner that, after the marriage, on 13.05.2010, during the 'Adukkalakanal' function, the 1st respondent was entrusted with Rs.5,00,000/- towards the petitioner's share. The Family Court has rejected the claim for lack of evidence. PW4 is the petitioner's uncle. He has deposed that he had handed over the amount to the 1st respondent. To substantiate the payment of such amount, the petitioner relies on Exts.A16 and A20 documents. They relate to the redemption of various gold ornaments by the 1st respondent after 13.05.2010. According to the petitioner, utilising Rs.5,00,000/-, which was gifted to her on 13.05.2010, the gold ornaments of Premkumar's sisters, which were under pledge, were redeemed under Exts.A16 to A21. A perusal of the receipts indicates that the accounts were closed on various dates. Exts. A16 and A20 alone were closed on 14.06.2010. The other accounts were closed much later. The total amount for Exts.A16 and A20 is only Rs.85,000/-. The mere fact that the pledge under Exts.A16 to A21 were redeemed after the date of the alleged entrustme
A valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act must be accepted by the donee during their lifetime; a subsequent cancellation is ineffective if the donee has passed away.
A unilateral cancellation of a Settlement Deed is impermissible if the deed has been accepted and acted upon, as established by legal precedents.
The court upheld the validity of a decree for the return of gold ornaments based on insufficient counter-evidence and adequate testimonial support from the petitioner.
The legal effect of a cancellation deed executed to cancel a settlement deed and the interpretation of Ext.B1 as a gift deed.
Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid without specific grounds for revocation under law, reaffirming 'possession follows title'.
The court upheld the return of gold ornaments based on the principle that women may face unique evidentiary challenges in family disputes, requiring a pragmatic legal approach.
The husband, being the sole legal heir, retains rights over the deceased wife's assets under Hindu Succession Act, regardless of allegations against him.
A settlement deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless the settlor expressly reserves such a right; otherwise, the cancellation is void.
Unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is void unless explicitly allowed in the document; the nature of such documents determines rights and responsibilities without ambiguity.
The court adopted a pragmatic approach in disputes involving the return of gold ornaments, recognizing the inherent difficulties women face in evidencing familial entrustments, thus adopting a prepon....
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
