IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
S. Manjula - Appellant
Versus
G. Shoba & Others - Respondent
AS.No. 327 of 2015 (Through Video Conferencing)
Decided On : 14-06-2022
Cancellation of Gift Deed - Property Dispute - GO.Ms.No.139, dated 25.07.2007 - (2012) 5 MLJ 169 - 2014 9 SCC 445 - 2013 9 CTC 318
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of cancellation of a gift deed, partition of the property, and permanent injunction. The Defendants contested the claim, denying the validity of the gift deed and alleging that the Plaintiff had obtained the deed through coercion and had not acted upon it. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the gift deed was valid and irrevocable, and the cancellation of the gift deed by the 4th Defendant was not legally valid. The Court also noted that possession was handed over on the same day as the execution of the gift deed, supporting the Plaintiff's claim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the gift deed, the entitlement to a share in the property, and the possession of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on legal provisions and precedents to establish the validity of the gift deed, emphasizing the importance of acceptance and possession in determining the validity of a gift. The Court also considered the implications of the cancellation of the gift deed without proper notice.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was dismissed, affirming the validity of the gift deed and rejecting the cancellation by the 4th Defendant.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the judgement and decree, dated 01.04.2015, made in OS.No.50 of 2014, by the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.)
1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, by the Plaintiff , against the judgement and decree, dated 01.04.2015, made in OS.No.50 of 2014, by the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.
2. The case of the Plaintiff , as set out, in the plaint is that the 4th Defendant is the mother of the Plaintiff and the 1 to 3 Defendants. The suit property and other properties belonged to the 4th Defendant. The 4th Defendant had gifted the suit property, by a Registered Gift Deed dated, 13.06.2012, in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and since then, they have been in possession of the same and they became the absolute owners of the same. The gift deed is an irrevocable and unconditional one. The Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to Defendants had sold 0.37 cents of land out of the Ac.2.37, by a sale deed, dated 19.09.2013 and paid the amount to the 4th Defendant for her needs. Even in the sale deed, dated 19.09.2013, the 4th Defendant is also an attestor. Thus, the remaining 2.00 acres is their absolute property. The Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 are each entitled to 1/4th share in the same. On 01.04.2014, the Plaintiff learnt that on 01.11.2013, the 4th Defendant executed a deed of cancellation of the gift deed, dated 13.06.2012, which cannot be sustained in law. According to GO.Ms.No.139, dated 25.07.2007 and the decision of this Court reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 169, the Sub-Registrars have been directed not to cancel any document without consent of other party. The 4th Defendant is making arrangements to alienate the suit property. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the deed of cancellation of Gift deed, dated 01.11.2013 is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and 1 to 3 Defendants and for permanent injunction against the 4th Defendant and for partition to divide the suit property into 4 equal shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and for costs.
3. The case of the Defendants 1 to 4, as set out in the written statement, filed by the 4th Defendant and adopted by the Defendants 1 to 3 is that the Plaintiff have no cause of action. The averments relating to the alleged gift deed and that the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 had obtained possession of the suit land are totally denied. The original document is still retained by the 4th Defendant with the consent and concurrence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 on 01.11.2013. This Defendant totally refutes the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 to 3 have become absolute owners and the 4th Defendant had lost her right by virtue of the gift deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3. The alleged gift deed was not executed in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant s 1 to 3 out of her own volition. In fact, the Plaintiff had persuaded her and compelled her to execute the settlement deed in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3, by giving false assurance to take care of her. The Plaintiff's actions were adverse to the interest of the Defendants 1 to 3. The revenue records and assessment still stands in the name of the 4th Defendant. The settlement deed, dated 13.06.2002 is a sham and nominal document. The alleged sale deed, dated 19.09.2013 will not bind the 4th Defendant. It is totally false to state that the Plaintiff and the Defendant s 1 to 3 had paid the amount to this Defendant.The Plaintiff approached the Defendants 1 to 4 and requested for money to settle the loan amount to the creditors and then sell the suit property, ad-measuring 0.37 cents out of 2.37 acres to one Krishnan by a registered sale deed. The Plaintiff alone took the entire sale consideration of Rs.13 lakhs for her personal needs. She had executed the cancellation deed dated 01.11.2013 with the consen
The central legal point established in the judgment is the irrevocable nature of a gift deed, the significance of acceptance and possession in validating a gift, and the legal requirements for cancel....
Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act embodies principles of universal application that when main object of transferor is to make an absolute transfer, an inconsistent provision therein cannot be gi....
Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid without specific grounds for revocation under law, reaffirming 'possession follows title'.
In absence of any right for revocation of a gift deed in deed itself, unilateral execution of a cancellation deed to cancel gift deed is bad in law and is legally unsustainable.
A gift deed executed by a party lacking title is invalid, allowing heirs to seek partition of inherited property without needing to cancel the gift deed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a deed of conveyance shall not be cancelled without putting the person on notice, and the court considered the impact of the cancellation deed....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.