Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1972 Supreme(Mad) 163

Madras High Court
V. RAMASWAMI
Thakkadi Syed Mohamed - Appellant
Versus
Ahmed Fathummal - Respondent
Decided On : 03/09/1972

Advocates:
M. V. Krishnan, for Appellant; S. B. Abdul Wahab, for Respondents.

The mere existence of a relationship between the donor and donee does not give rise to a presumption of undue influence. The burden of proving undue influence lies on the person who alleges it, and the presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that the gift was the result of a free exercise of independent will.

Headnote:
GIFT DEED - VALIDITY - UNDUE INFLUENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DONOR AND DONEE - PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE - REBUTTAL.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for partition, separate possession, and accounts of certain properties, claiming a share in the immoveable and moveable properties left by her father. The first defendant, her brother, contested the suit, relying on a gift deed executed by the plaintiff in his favor. The trial court found the gift deed to be valid and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the gift deed was not valid due to lack of essential ingredients and undue influence.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in its findings. It found that the gift deed satisfied the essential requirements of a valid gift under Muhammadan Law and that there was no evidence of undue influence or coercion. The court noted that the plaintiff was a married woman living separately from the donees and that the document was attested by her husband, who was not examined as a witness. The court also considered the fact that the plaintiff had received a substantial amount of gold at the time of her marriage.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed was valid under Muhammadan Law. 2. Whether the gift deed was executed under undue influence or coercion.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the gift deed was valid under Muhammadan Law as it satisfied the essential requirements of offer, acceptance, and delivery of property. The court rejected the lower appellate court's finding that there was no delivery of possession, noting that the properties were already in the possession of the donees and that the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence to show that she was in possession after the gift. 2. The court held that there was no evidence to support the lower appellate court's finding that the gift deed was executed under undue influence or coercion. The court noted that the plaintiff was a married woman living separately from the donees, that the document was attested by her husband, and that there was no evidence of any pressure or coercion being exerted on her.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, holding that the gift deed was valid and enforceable.

JUDGMENT :- The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for partition, separate possession and for accounts. The first schedule and second schedule to the plaint are immoveable properties and the third and the fourth schedules are moveable properties. The plaintiff claimed 38/240th share in the first and fourth schedules, 53/1440th share in the second schedule and one-fifth share in the third schedule properties. The plaintiff is the sister of the first and second defendants. They are the children of one Thakkadi Ahmad Mohideen. According to the plaint, the first and fourth schedule properties belonged to Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen. After his death, the plaintiff and first and second defendants inherited the same and were in joint and constructive possession. The deceased Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen left also one Thakkadi Mohammed Abubacker and Asini Beevi as his heirs, along with the plaintiff and the second defendant. Thakkadi Mohammed Abubacker died leaving his only son, the third defendant who succeeded to his share. Though the fourth defendant is the son of another brother of the plaintiff, since the brother pre-deceased the father, the fourth defendant was not entitled to any share. Pending the suit the fourth defendant died and defendants 5 and 6 are his heirs. Thus, on the admitted facts, the plaintiff, the first defendant and the third defendant would have been entitled to a share in the properties of Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen. As already stated, the first and fourth schedule properties are the properties left by the said Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen. The plaintiff's mother inherited the second schedule properties that belonged to her father and she was in possession with the other co-owners. The third schedule is said to be the moveable property inherited by the plaintiff's mother. Since Asial Beevi is dead, the plaintiff is entitled to 53/1440th share in the second schedule in the properties and one-fifth share in the third schedule properties. These facts are admitted. While so on 14-6-1961 the plaintiff executed a document which is styled as gift settlement deed of her share in the immoveable properties set out in schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff that this deed was obtained from her under undue influence and coercion and that in any case it was not a valid gift, as the requirements of a valid gift are not satisfied. She also pleaded that by way of abundant caution she had also executed a cancellation of that document; but such a cancellation document has not been produc ed in this case.

2. The trial Court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that Ex. B-3 was a gift deed executed by the plaintiff, that it was true, valid and binding on her and that it was not executed under undue influence and coercion. The trial court also found that the plaintiff has not proved the existence of the moveables mentioned in the third and fourth schedules to the plaint. In view of the finding that the gift deed is valid, the suit was dismissed.

3. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, accepted the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff has not proved the existence of the third and fourth schedule moveables, but differing from the finding of the trial court held that Ex. B-3 was not a valid document, that it must have been obtained under undue influence and coercion and that in any case the conditions for a valid gift are not satisfied and that, therefore, there was no valid gift of the share of the plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 to 3. The first defendant has preferred this second appeal.

4. The first ground on which the Lower Appellate Court held that the gift was not valid was that the gift deed was ab initio void for want of the three essential ingredients provided in the Muhammadan Law, namely, offer, acceptance and delivery of property. I must state that the reasonings of the Lower

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Mad) 163

Madras High CourtV. RAMASWAMIThakkadi Syed Mohamed - AppellantVersusAhmed Fathummal - RespondentDecided On : 03/09/1972

Madras High Court
V. RAMASWAMI
Thakkadi Syed Mohamed - Appellant
Versus
Ahmed Fathummal - Respondent
Decided On : 03/09/1972