The court affirmed a gift deed's validity even when its intended use was not fulfilled, highlighting the binding nature of charitable gifts.

D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') has assailed. the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmagarh in R.F.A. No. 22/81 of 2011. By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellants being the unsuccessful Plaintiff under section' 96 of the Code has been dismissed. The Plaintiff as the Appellant thus having filed the suit for declaration that registered sale deed dated 04.07.1989, is invalid and he has the right, title, interest and possession over the suit land has been non-suited. The suit filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff)' against the Respondents (Defendants) has thus been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff's case is that the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint had been purchased by his father by registered sale deed dated 30.05.1969 from Brundaban Mali and Trilochan Mali. Being the purchaser and as such the owner of the suit land, he remained in possession of the same. It is stated that based on the purchase the suit land has been mutated and the land record has accordingly been prepared.

It is the case of the Plaintiff that sometime in the year 1989, some, people of the village Chilipa floated a proposal for establishment of a School at Chilipa. For that purpose and in order to get recognition, availability of the land of Ac. 5.00 dec. was the requirement. When the above idea was found to be attractive for the public good; the Plaintiff and some others agreed to donate their lands by gifting the same. Accordingly, the, Plaintiff gifted away the suit land in favour of the School and executed a registered deed of gift for the purpose on 04.07.1989. Some other persons, of the area also acted accordingly. It is stated that despite execution" and registration of the said deed of gift covering the suit land, the Plaintiff' continued to be in possession of the same and it is also stated that he received compensation amount concerning acquisition of a portion of' the suit land. The Managing Committee of the School did not utilize the land gifted by the Plaintiff and others. They, on the other, hand constructed the School building on Plot No. 763 appertaining Khata No. 4. Thus, it is said that the very object behind the gift was defeated and the gift was not acted upon. The Plaintiff thus claims to have been continuing to have the title over the said land, which is in his possession. It is said that by virtue of execution of the said registered deed of gift, the title or possession over the suit property did never pass to the School. The Plaintiff on 31.10.2003 sent a notice through his Lawyer to the President and Secretary of the School inviting their attention as to non-utilization of the gifted land for the purpose for which it has been so gifted by the Plaintiff. In that notice the Plaintiff expressed his intention of cancelling the deed of gift but no response was received. It is thus said that the gift is void ab initio and inoperative and it is also not binding on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also claims to have perfected his right, title and interest over the said land by way of adverse possession.

4. The Defendants, which is a recognized School is in receipt of Government Grant-in-Aid has asserted that the school building is on the land of Plot Nos. 1340 and 1339/1993. They state that the object of the gift has neither been defeated nor frustrated. It is also stated that the gift was duly accepted and acted upon. It is said that the Plai