An oral transfer of property as 'Sreedhana' requires a written and registered document under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act to confer title.

The appellant challenges the decree and judgment dated 16.12.1997 made in C.M.A.No.6 of 1997, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, dated 16.04.1997 made in E.A.No.285 of 1995 in E.A.No.68 of 1995 in E.P.No.49 of 1991 in R.C.No.3030 of 1978.

2. The respondent is the decree holder in R.C.No.3030 of 1978, on the file of the Divisional Development Officer, Pattukottai. One Mr.Janakiraman and Mr.Ramasamy who are the sons of one Periyathambi Thevar are the judgment debtors. The respondent had filed E.A.No.68 of 1995, for execution of the said decree. In the said execution proceedings, certain properties belonging to the judgments debtors were brought for sale by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai. The property which is the subject matter of this appeal, namely 78 cents comprised in R.S.No.218/6 at Sengamangalam Village was also one of the properties attached and brought for sale. In the Court auction, on due permission, the respondent participated and became the successful bidder. Appropriate sale certificate was also issued by the Court. During the said execution proceedings, when delivery was ordered and the Court Amin attempted to deliver the property to the auction purchaser, the appellant herein gave one obstruction, stating that she is the absolute owner of the property and therefore, the property should not be delivered. So, the Amin did not effect delivery of possession. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed an application for removal of obstruction in E.A.No.285 of 1995 in E.A.No.68 of 1995. The appellant filed a detailed objection for the same.

3. During enquiry, on the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2 and one document was marked as Ex.A.1. On the side of the appellant herein, her husband was examined as R.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5. Having considered all the materials, the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, by order dated 16.04.1997 dismissed the said application of the decree-holder and refused to remove the obstruction.

4. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein filed C.M.A.No.6 of 1997, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai. Having considered the materials available on record, the learned Subordinate Judge by decree and judgment dated 16.12.1997, set aside the decree and judgment of the lower Court and allowed E.A.No.285 of 1995 thereby removing the obstruction. Challenging the same, this civil miscellaneous second appeal has been filed.

5. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has raised several grounds and also substantial questions of law. However, when the case was listed on 09.03.1998, this Court did not admit the same, instead ordered notice to the respondent. On appearance of the respondent, today it was heard by this Court for admission, to find out whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, so as to admit the second appeal.

6. There is no dispute that the property in question was originally owned by one Mr.Periyathambi Thevar. The judgment debtors are his sons and the appellant is his daughter. According to the appellant, the property was orally given away to her as a “Sreedhana property” at the time of her marriage and by virtue of the same, she has became the absolute owner and as such, the property cannot be proceeded with, in the execution proceedings.

7. The lower Appellate Court has held that any such “Sreedhana” of a property could be made only by way of a written document and duly registered since the same would fall under Section 123 of the Transfer of property Act, as a gift. The learned counsel would seriously question the correctness of the said finding and would submit that the transaction under which the property was given to the appellant orally is not a gift as defined in Section 122 of the Transfer of property Act, and therefore, the same need not be