Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Champa Devi - Appellant
Versus
Rama and Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. - 504, 505 of 2001
Decided On : 06-05-2014
Gift Deed - Property Dispute - Registration Act, 1908, Hindu Succession Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Registration Act, 1908, Section 34, Section 35, Hindu Succession Act, Section 8, Section 14 - The court discussed the validity of a gift deed and will, the registration of a gift deed after the death of the executor, the presumption of joint family property, and the requirements for proving a will. The court emphasized the burden of proof, the importance of following legal procedures for registration and execution of documents, and the principles of succession under Hindu law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two appeals arising from a judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The first suit was based on a registered gift deed, while the second suit contested the validity of the gift deed and claimed the property as joint family property. The Trial Court decreed the first suit and dismissed the second suit, but the Lower Appellate Court reversed these findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property in dispute was self-acquired property of Smt. Basanti Devi and not joint family property. It held that the gift deed was validly executed and that the will was not proved in accordance with the law. As a result, both suits were dismissed, and the judgments of the Lower Appellate Court were set aside.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the gift deed, the registration of the gift deed after the death of the executor, the presumption of joint family property, and the proof of the will in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof, the importance of following legal procedures for registration and execution of documents, and the principles of succession under Hindu law. It held that the Lower Appellate Court had committed manifest errors of law and reached a misplaced conclusion.
Final Decision: Both suits were dismissed, and the judgments of the Lower Appellate Court were set aside.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. These two appeals have arisen from a common judgment and decree dated 31.1.2001 passed by XIII Additional District Judge, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "Lower Appellate Court") whereby civil appeal No.77 of 1996 was allowed completely and Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1996 was allowed partly.
2. Civil Appeal No.77 of 1996 has arisen from judgment and decree dated 29.3.1996 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Varanasi whereby he decreed original suit no.975 of 1990. Lower Appellate Court has reversed Trial Court's decree and dismissed original suit no.975 of 1990.
3. Civil Appeal No.75 of 1996 has arisen from judgment and decree of the same date in Original Suit No.1370 of 1990, which was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court has allowed appeal partly, and decreed the suit to the extent of cancelling gift deed dated 26.11.1988 but with respect to injunction, the suit has been dismissed.
4. Original Suit No.975 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "first suit") was instituted by Smt. Champa Devi wife of Sri Shiv Nath impleading Rama son of Late Bhagelu and Shiv Murat, Shri Nath and Lalaji, all sons of late Bhagelu alleging that Araji No.731, area 1 acre 30 decimal situate at Village Goppur, Pargana Katehar, Tehsil and District Varanasi was initially owned by Smt. Basanti Devi, wife of Bhagelu, who executed a registered gift deed dated 26.11.1988 in favour of plaintiff Champa Devi, and also handed over possession thereof on 26.11.1988. The plaintiff therefore, is owner in possession of property in dispute and defendants have no concern therewith but are threatening to dispossess plaintiff, therefore, injunction was sought restraining defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiff.
5. Original Suit No.1370 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "second suit") was instituted by defendants of first suit impleading Champa Devi as defendant no.1 and her husband Shiv Nath as defendant no.2, alleging that property in dispute belong to Smt. Basanti Devi, which she bequeathed to plaintiffs and defendant no.2 of second suit, vide registered Will dated 18.11.1989, pursuant whereto names of plaintiffs and defendant no.2 of second suit have also been entered into Khasra and Khatauni. The gift deed set up by defendant no.1(Champa Devi) in first suit is forged and fictitious, therefore, it should be declared illegal and be revoked. The defendant no.1 be restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs of second suit.
6. It is admitted by all the parties that Smt. Basanti Devi died on 14.4.1990.
7. The Trial Court formulated 10 issues in first suit and 8 issues in second suit. Issues no.1, 2 and 3 of first suit and issues no.1,2 and 4 of second suit, relevant in these appeals, read as under:
First suit
^^1- D;k okfnuh okn&xzLr lEifRr dh rugk ekfyd dkfct gS\ tfj;s jftLVMZ 'kqnk nku&i= u foLrk clUrh nsoh c&gd okfnuh gS\
2- D;k mDr jftLVMZ 'kqnk nku&i= xyr xyr gS\ ;fn gka rks izHkkoA
3- D;k clUrh nsoh us okn&xzLr lEifRr dk iathd`r olh;rukek izfroknhx.k o f'koukFk ds gd esa fnukad 18-11-89 bZ0 dks rgjhj fd;k\ ;fn gka rks izHkko\**
English Translation by the Court:
"1. Whether the lady plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession over the property in suit through registered gift-deed executed by Basanti Devi in favour of plaintiff?
2.Whether the aforesaid registered gift-deed is false. If so, its effect?
3.Whether Basanti Devi had executed a registered will on 18.11.98 in favour of Defendants and Shivnath in respect of the property in suit. If so, its effect?"
Second suit
^^1- D;k fookfnr c['khukek fnukad 26-11-88 okni= dh /kkjk 8 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ealw[k gksus ;ksX; gS\
2- D;k okn i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij oknh] izfroknh x.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
4- D;k fookfnr tk;nkn clUrh nsoh ds uke ls la;qDr lEifRr ls fy;k x;k gS vFkok mldh futh dekbZ dh gS\**
English Translation by the Court.
"1. Whether the disputed gift-deed dated 26.11.88 is liable to b
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
