The irrevocability of a completed gift under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(Second Appeals preferred against the common judgment and decrees dated 21.10.1994 made in A.S.Nos. 30 and 31 of 1993 respectively, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, against the common judgment and decrees dated 24.12.1992 made in O.S.Nos: 731 of 1988 and 429 of 1987 respectively on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Thirukoilur.)

Common Judgment:

In O.S.No:731 of 1988, the plaintiff Palanivel, who has purchased the suit property from the Donee Velliangiri has filed the suit for declaration of title and for mesne profits. According to the plaintiff the suit property originally belonged to the 1st defendant Nagamuthu and he gifted the same by a gift deed on 22.8.1963 to his sister's son Velliangiri. The said Velliangiri accepted the gift and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and on 24.5.1987 he sold the same to the plaintiff. But the first defendant Nagamuthu to defeat the sale has cancelled the gift deed dated 22.8.1963, which is illegal and he is not entitled to do the same. It is not correct to state that the gift was not effected and acted upon by the donee Velliangiri. The first defendant also filed a suit in O.S.No.429/87 claiming title in the suit properties wrongly and he has also mortgaged the suit property to the 4th defendant and based on that the defendants 5 to 7 have encroached the suit property without any authority and are in possession of the same. Hence the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

2. The defendants in the said suit filed a common written statement contending that though the gift deed had been executed by him in favour of his sister's son Velliangiri, out of love and affection and with the intention that he will look after him later, but the same has been cancelled by him on 6.3.1987 by a revocation deed since Velliangiri after his marriage got separated and also stolen some of the documents from his custody and disputes arose in that respect. Thus the said gift deed dated 22.8.1963 has not been acted upon and came into effect and the suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of the first defendant alone. The sale to the plaintiff by the said Velliangiri is without any consideration. The defendants are not in illegal possession.

3. O.S.No.429 of 1987 has been filed by the plaintiff Nagamuthu, the first defendant in O.S.No:731/88 filed by Palanivel, for the relief of declaration of title of the same suit property and for permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The pleadings are more or less one and the same of the written statement filed by him in the suit filed by Palanivel in O.S.No:731/87. The defendant therein, namely Palanivel has pleaded the same averment as has been mentioned in his Plaint in the said suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties and evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the learned counsel for either side, the learned District Munsif, Thirukolur by a common judgment and decrees dismissed O.S.No.731 of 1988 filed by Palanivel and allowed O.S.No:429 of 1987. On appeals filed by the aggrieved Palanivel, the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, reversed the common judgment and decrees of the trial court, and allowing both the Appeal Suits. Hence, the second appeals against common judgment and decrees of the first appellate court by Nagamuthu.

5. At the time of admission, this court framed the following separate substantial questions of law in both the Second Appeals:-

SA.No:1539 of 1994:

"Whether the court below has not erred in law in failing to see that the gift under Ex.A.1 has not been accepted as per the provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore there was no valid gift and this would be evident from the fact that the appellant had paid the kist under Exs.B.4 to B.16 and by the patta and chitta granted in favour of the appellant under Exs.B.3 and B.19 and from the depositions of DWs.2,3 and 4?

SA.No:1340/94:

(i) Whether the judgment a