SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ori) 163

High Court Of Orissa
P. K. Misra
GURUBARI BEWA NETRAMANI KHUNTIA - Appellant
Versus
JAGADIS PARIDA - Respondent
Second Appeal 88  Of  1986
Decided On : 10/29/1999

Advocates Appeared:
B.B.BISVAL, B.Routray, D.K.BISWAS, K.B.KAR, M.R.Panda, N.K.SAHU, P.K.SAHU, P.KAR, R.BISWAL, R.C.DAS, R.K.DAS, R.K.MOHAPATRA, S.K.DAS GUPTA

Acceptance of a gift is an essential condition for its validity, and such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor.

Headnote:

GIFT - VALIDITY - ACCEPTANCE - ESSENTIAL CONDITION - POSSESSION OR DELIVERY OF DEED OF GIFT - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit to set aside a deed of gift and sale deed executed by Dhadi Swain in favor of defendant No. 1, claiming that they were obtained fraudulently and by undue influence. The trial court decreed the suit in respect of the deed of gift but dismissed it in respect of the sale deed. The lower appellate court reversed the decree in respect of the deed of gift, finding it to be validly executed. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court challenging the validity of both the deed of gift and the sale deed.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the deed of gift was invalid as there was no evidence to indicate that it had been accepted by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. The court also found that there were suspicious circumstances relating to the execution of the deed of gift, such as the fact that the donor was an illiterate old man and that the deed was registered at a distant place. The court upheld the validity of the sale deed, as it was executed for consideration and there was no evidence of fraud or undue influence.

Issues: 1. Whether the deed of gift was validly executed and accepted by the donee during the lifetime of the donor? 2. Whether the sale deed was executed for consideration and without fraud or undue influence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Acceptance of a gift is an essential condition for its validity, and such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor. 2. The burden of proving acceptance of the gift lies on the donee. 3. In the absence of evidence of delivery of possession of the gifted property or handing over of the deed of gift to the donee during the lifetime of the donor, the gift cannot be considered valid. 4. Suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed of gift, such as the illiteracy of the donor and the registration of the deed at a distant place, may cast doubt on its genuineness. 5. A sale deed executed for consideration and without fraud or undue influence is valid.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the deed of gift and upholding the validity of the sale deed.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS have filed this appeal against a reversing judgment. The suit was filed for setting aside the deed of gift dated 20. 4. 1977 and sale deed dated 23. 11 1977 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by Dhadi swain and for confirmation of possession, or recovery of possession, and permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs. Plaintiff No. 1 is the brother of late Dhadi Swain and plaintiff no. 2 is son of plaintiff No. 1. It is alleged that a deed of gift was obtained from late Dhadi swain by defendant No. 1 fraudulently and by exercise of undue influence in respect of "a" schedule property on 20. 4. 1977 and a sale deed was similarly obtained in respect of "b" schedule property on 23. 11. 1977. It is not disputed that Dhadi Swain died issueless. The suit was filed after death of Dhadi Swaim in the year 1978.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2. In their joint written statement it was claimed that the deed of gift was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 out of love and affection. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed in respect of "b" Schedule land, as dhadi Swain wanted to meet his personal expenses and to repay the loan incurred by him. It was claimed that the deed of gift as well as the sale deed had been duly executed. It was further claimed that defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of both "a" Schedule and "b" schedule properties and had constructed house on a portion of the disputed land.

( 3 ) SINCE Jitendra was claiming to be the adopted son of late Dhadi Swain, his natural father and he himself were impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 respectively

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit in respect of "a" Schedule property on the finding that the deed of gift had not been validly executed. The suit was dismissed in respect of "b" Schedule property on a finding that the sale deed had been validity executed for consideration. The plea of adoption set up by defendants 3 and 4 was negatived. The said finding having not been challenged by defendants 3 and 4 any further became final.

( 5 ) APPEAL was filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the part decree in favour of the plaintiffs relating "a" Schedule property. A cross-objection was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of part of the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in respect of "b" Schedule property.

( 6 ) THE lower appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court relating to "b" schedule property, but reversed the decree in respect of "a" Scheudle property on a finding that the deed of gift had been validly executed. Accordingly, the appeal of defendants 1 and 2 was allowed and the cross-objection of plaintiffs was dismissed.

( 7 ) AGAINST the aforesaid decision of the lower appellate Court, the present Second appeal has been filed challenging the findings of the lower appellate Court in respect of both "a" Schedule property as well as "b" Schedule property, that is to say. relating to the validity of the deed of gift as well as the sale deed. However, at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the finding relating to sale deed (Ext. B) was confirmed and the appeal was confined to the question of validity of the deed of gift. The following substantial question of law was framed by order dated 18. 7. 1986 :"this appeal is restricted only to the validity of Ext. A/1, the Gift-Deed and must be taken to be concluded so far as ext. B is concerned. The substantial question of law to be urged in this appeal is whether the gift in question was given effect to while Dhadi was alive and whether the conditions of the gift-deed have been duly fulfilled or not. "

( 8 ) SECTION 122 of the Tansfer of Property act defines "gift" in the following terms. "122. Gift defined. 'gift' is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance wh





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top