Back
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT
SANJUKTA RAY - Appellant
Versus
BIMELENDU MOHANTY - Respondent
First Appeal 222 Of 1993
Decided On : 10/15/1996
GIFT - ACCEPTANCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRESUMPTION - CIRCUMSTANCES - VALIDITY OF GIFT - INTERPRETATION OF GIFT DEED - POSSESSION - INTENTION OF DONOR - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DONOR AND DONEE - SILENCE AND DELAY - REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between a brother and sister over the ownership of a building constructed on a leasehold property gifted by their mother, Sita Devi, to the sister, Sanjukta. The plaintiffs, the brother and his wife, claimed that the gift deed was not acted upon and did not relate to the suit property. The defendant, Sanjukta, contended that the gift deed was validly executed and accepted, and that she had exclusive ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the gift deed was validly executed and accepted, and that the defendant, Sanjukta, had exclusive ownership of the property. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to rebut the presumption of acceptance arising from the execution of the gift deed and the possession of the deed by the defendant. The court also found that the circumstances, including the relationship between the donor and the donee, the long silence of the plaintiffs, and the payment of rent in the name of the donor, supported the validity of the gift.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed was validly executed and accepted?2. Whether the defendant had exclusive ownership of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a gift is a gratuitous transfer of property without consideration, and that the essential elements of a gift are the absence of consideration, the donor, the donee, the subject-matter, the transfer, and the acceptance.2. The court held that acceptance of a gift can be established by circumstances such as the donee taking possession of the property or being in possession of the deed of gift alone.3. The court held that the presumption of acceptance arising from the execution of the gift deed and the possession of the deed by the donee can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, but that the plaintiffs had failed to provide such evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) HE who says what is mine is yours and what is yous is yours is a saint. He says, what is your is mine and what is mine is mine is a wicked man", says Babylanian Telmud (Aboth V ). The principal characters involved in this unfortunate family dispute are brother and sister, giving a lie to the saying blood in thicker than water. Bone of controversy revolves round a building standing on AC 0. 64 decimals of land claimed to have been gifted by Sita Devi, mother of Bimelendu (plaintiff No. 1), Sanjukta and Sakuntala (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and mother-in-law of Niharika (plaintiff No. 2) who are respondent No. 1, appellant, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 respectively in this appeal.
( 2 ) A brief reference to the factual position would suffice. Suit property described in Schedule B of the plaint originally belonged to one Ganesh Chandra who executed a registered permanent lease deed dated 11-4-1944 in favour of aforesaid Sita Devi in respect of the same, along with other properties forming a compact book measuring Ac. O. 238 decimals. At the time of execution of the said lease deed, no building was standing on any part of the property. On 24l2-1962 she executed a gift deed in favour of her elder daughter Sanjukta (defendant No. 1 ). By that time she had constructed a building in 1959-60 in the leasehold property in her possession by availing loan. On 20-11l978 Sita Devi executed a registered gift deed in favour of her younger daughter Sakuntala (pro forma defendant No. 2) in respect of AC. O. 081 decimals. In the said registered deed of gift, the donor declared that she obtained the property by the aforesaid registered deed of lease and on payment of the premium and by paying rent to the ex-landlord and to the Government after vesting of the property in question and that she exercised ownership over the property. It was further indicated therein that to meet her legal necessity, she had sold Ac. O. 090 decimals from the leasehold property and remaining land measuring Ac. O. 148 decimals stood recorded in her name and she was paying rent. She constructed a two storied building on the southern side of the plot of land. Another single storied building stood on the northern side. By the gift deed in question, Sita Devi gifted the double storied building in favour of pro forma defendant No. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that defendant No. 1 is not the exclusive owner of the suit property and the same is the joint property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and for a further declaration that the order dated 17-6-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Settlement is illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiffs and for issuance of direction to the Collector for necessary correction of the settlement record of rights. Their case in a nutshell is that gift deed on which defendant No. l's case is founded was not acted upon, and in any event did not relate to the suit property. Without properly appreciating the factual and legal aspects, settlement authorities directed recording the properties in defendant No. 1's name. In any event, recording was done on the basis of misrepresentation, and neither conferred any title on defendant No. 1 nor destroyed it so far as plaintiffs are concerned.
( 3 ) ONLY defendant No. 1 contested the suit and filed written statement. Her stand as reflected in the written statement was to the effect that recital in the registered gift deed dated 19-11-1978 in favour of defendant No. 2 to the effect that she had kept the building in question for her own residence is a collusive act and is of no avail to the plaintiffs. Because late Sita Devi was not conversant with English language in which the document was ascribed, such a recital in the document being contrary and not in conformity with the gift deed in favour of defendant No. 1 dated 1412-1962 (Ext. E), there is nothing to effect title of defendant No. 1 as the same has already been convey
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
