Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
R. Kumarasamy Kounder
Versus
V. Ezhumalai Kounder
Second Appeal No. 1283 of 1995
Decided On : 10-01-1996
GIFT - ACCEPTANCE - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY DONOR AND ACCEPTED BY LOCAL GUARDIAN ON BEHALF OF MINOR DONEES - STAMP DUTY PAID BY LOCAL GUARDIAN - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY HANDED OVER TO DONEES - GIFT IRREVOCABLE - CANCELLATION DEED EXECUTED BY DONOR INVALID - SALE BY DONOR IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT VOID - PLAINTIFF PURCHASING PROPERTY FROM ONE OF THE DONEES ENTITLED TO RECOVER POSSESSION FROM DEFENDANT - TRESPASSER.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property, claiming title through a sale deed executed by one of the donees under a gift deed executed by the original owner. The defendant claimed title through a subsequent sale deed and lease executed by the original owner after he had executed the gift deed. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the gift deed was not properly proved and had not been accepted by the donees. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the gift deed was valid and had been accepted by the donees through their local guardian. The court found that the stamp duty for the gift deed had been paid by the local guardian, and that the original owner had declared in the gift deed that he had handed over possession of the property to the donees. The court also found that the subsequent cancellation deed executed by the original owner was invalid, as he had no power to revoke the gift once it had been accepted. The court further held that the sale deed executed by the original owner in favour of the defendant was void, as the original owner had no title to the property at the time of the sale. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property from the defendant, as the defendant was a trespasser.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed was valid and had been accepted by the donees? 2. Whether the subsequent cancellation deed executed by the original owner was valid? 3. Whether the sale deed executed by the original owner in favour of the defendant was valid? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property from the defendant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A gift is complete and irrevocable once it has been accepted by the donee, either directly or through a guardian or agent acting on their behalf. 2. The acceptance of a gift can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transaction, such as the payment of stamp duty by the donee or their guardian, or the handing over of possession of the property to the donee. 3. A donor cannot revoke a gift once it has been accepted by the donee, even if the donor subsequently changes their mind. 4. A sale of property by a person who does not have title to the property is void.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the decree of the trial court. The plaintiff was granted a decree for recovery of possession of the property with mesne profits from the defendant.
1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 1991, on the file of Additional District Munsiffs Court, Villupuram.
2. The suit filed by the appellant is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the following facts:-
The property having an area of 80 cents originally belonged to one Govindasamy Gounder who sold the same to one Pandurangan as per Ex.B.1. Pandurangan had two sons. It is said that on the death of the wife of Pandurangan, these children, who were then minors, were left in the custody of their uncle Natesan. At that time, Pandurangan executed the original of Ex.A.4 settlement deed dated 112. 1986. The original of the document is marked as Ex.B.15 on the side of the defendant. It is averred that as per the settlement deed, the minors became the absolute owners of the property who were then under the protection of their uncle Natesan. Pandurangan was a permanent employee at Madras. On 26. 1989, Pandurangan executed a cancellation of the settlement as evidenced by Ex. B.3 and thereafter he sold 3 cents of land under Ex.B.2 and a lease for a period of ten years as per Ex. B.4 in favour of the defendant. On the minor sons, the elder one became major and executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per Ex.A.1. It is averred that the defendant trespassed into the property on the basis of the sale and lease deed executed by Pandurangan. The suit is, therefore, filed on the basis of Ex.A.1, claiming title over the property and also for recovery of the same.
3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is alleged that Pandurangan did execute a settlement deed, but the same was not executed on his own will and pleasure, but Natesan got it executed by exercising undue influence and took the alleged settlement deed with him. It is also said that the settlement deed is not valid since Natesan cannot act as guardian while the natural guardians of the minors are alive. After knowing the invalidity of the document which, according to the defendant, did not come into effect, Pandurangan cancelled the same by way of abundant caution and thereafter executed a document in his favour as evidenced by Ex.B.2 and B. 4. It is said that the plaintiff has no title over the property and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Defendant wanted the suit to be dismissed with costs.
4. During trial, Ex.A.1 to A.6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. P.W.1 is the plaintiff and P.W.2 is an independent witness. On the side of the defendant, the defendant got himself examined as D.W.1 and the plaintiff’s vendor and the elder son of Pandurangan was examined as D.W.2 and Pandurangan himself deposed as D.W.3.
5. On the basis of the above evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the settlement deed is valid. It was duly accepted by the donees and the revocation deed as evidenced by Ex.B.3 is invalid. The title in favour of the plaintiff was also declared on the basis of Ex.A. 1. When the suit was decreed allowing the plaintiff to recover the property from the defendant, regarding mesne profits, necessary direction was given to ascertain the same in execution under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C.
6. The defendant took the matter in appeal as A.S.No.24 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Villupuram. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that Ex.A.4 or Ex.B.15 was not properly proved and also held that it has not come into effect. The lower Appellate Court even doubted the genuineness of Ex.B.15. It also said that possession might not have passed to the donees since Pandurangan was in possession to entrust the property to the defendant as evidenced from Ex.B.2 and B. 4. Since the cancellation has been effected, the Lower Appellate Court said that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is invalid. Allowing the appeal, the suit was dismissed. It is against the said decision, plaint
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
