Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Safique Mirdaha - Appellant
Versus
Nayeem Mirdaha, son of late Mansoor Mirdaha – Respondent
S.A. No. 16 of 2017
Decided on : 02-09-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Abdul Wahab, Advocate Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate
A party deemed incompetent due to deafness and muteness may still execute a valid deed if evidence shows understanding and intent, challenging the need for joint consent in family property matters.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Appeal - The appeal is against a decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge reversing the trial court's judgement in a declaration suit regarding joint family property and the validity of a gift deed executed by a defendant deemed incapable. (Para 2, 4, 23)
(B) Capacity to Execute Deed - The court held that even if a party is deaf and dumb, they may possess the capacity to understand and execute a gift deed, emphasizing that unsoundness of mind must be proven by the party asserting it. (Paras 15, 21)
(C) Joint Family Property - The deed of gift executed without the consent of all co-owners in joint family property was highlighted, drawing attention to the necessity of joint consent for validity. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sued for declaration and possession of family land, contesting a gift deed executed by a deaf and dumb defendant, arguing deceit and incompetence. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The learned appellate court found the defendant capable of understanding property matters and upheld the validity of the gift deed, determining the trial court's ruling as perverse. (Para 23)
Issues: The core issues related to the competency of the defendant to execute the gift deed and the validity of that deed within the context of joint family property. (Para 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the presumption of sound mind stands unless proven otherwise, stressing the standard needed for claims of unsoundness while evaluating defendants' understanding of property dealings. (Para 21)
Result: The second appeal is dismissed. (Para 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the land dispute and gift deed issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the alleged incapacity and property status. (Para 8 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's analysis on defendant's capacity and evidentiary scrutiny. (Para 9 , 10 , 15 , 20 , 22) |
| 4. key findings related to gift deed's validity and joint property issues. (Para 12 , 13 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling of appeal and dismissal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement 29.09.2016 (decree signed on 05.10.2016) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Lohardaga whereby Civil Appeal No.25 of 2012 has been allowed. The judgement of the trial court is dated 19.06.2012 (decree singed on 29.06.2012) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.IV Civil Court, Lohardaga in Title Suit No.6 of 2003.
3. The suit was decreed and the learned 1st appellate court has reversed the judgement and decree of the trial court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.
4. The suit was filed seeking a declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of the possession of the plaintiffs along with defendant nos.2 to 5 with respect to the suit land of village Banda P.S. Bhandra, P.S. No.230, District Lohdardaga bearing:-
a. R.S. Khata No.249, Plot No.521 area 1 acre corresponding to new survey khata No.120, new survey plot no.532;
b. RS Khata No.28, plot no.1104 area 0.06 acre corresponding to new survey khata no.119, new plot no.1176 and c. RS Khata No.28 plot no.1101 area 2 ½ decimals corresponding to new khata no.150, new plot no.1173.
Alternative relief was also prayed that if the plaintiffs are not found in possession of the suit land, delivery of possession may be given to the plaintiffs after ejecting the defendant no.1 from the suit land.
A prayer was also made seeking a declaration that the registered deed of Gift No.245/2003 dated 04.02.2003 executed by Chhedna Mirdaha (defendant no.2) in favour of Nayeem Mirdaha (defendant no.1) be declared illegal, null and void and not operative and not binding upon the plaintiffs and be cancelled.
5. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property was a joint family property and under such circumstances, defendant no.2 was not a competent person to execute the deed of gift in favour of defendant no.1 without the consent of all the co-owners.
6. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.2, being a deaf and dumb person, was misled by defendant no.1 through fraud and misrepresentation to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs further claimed that defendant no.2 was not competent to execute the deed of gift of the joint family property and there is no delivery of possession. It was further case that defendant no.2 was a person of weak mind and deaf and dumb person incapable of understanding anything well and was unaware of the fact the he was executing a gift deed in favour of defendant no.1. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the contents of the gift deed were not explained to the defendant no.2 since defendant no.2 was illiterate, deaf and dumb person and is a person of weak mind incapable of understanding a thing. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the execution of the aforesaid gift deed was never admitted by defendant no.2 in the presence of the Registrar and that in what manner the content of the alleged deed of gift has been admitted and how he identified the khata, plot area boundary etc., has not been explained by the Registrar or the deed writer. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no.2 is an illiterate, deaf and dumb person incapable to understand the thing well and is a man of unsound mind and hence was not the competent person to execute the deed of transfer.
7. Upon summons, a joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendant nos.1 and 2 and another joint written statement was filed
