Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Smt. Chhabi Podder and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Shri Krishna Podder and Ors. – Respondent
RSA No. 25 of 2009
Decided On : 14.10.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. D. K. Biswas, Adv., Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
Mr. K. N. Bhattacharji, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Das, Adv., Mr. N. Majumder, Adv.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
-
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and possession of a property originally owned by the defendant, which was sold to her mother-in-law and subsequently gifted to the plaintiff through a registered gift deed (!) (!) .
-
The defendant's argument that the sale was a paper transaction and that the mother-in-law never became owner was rejected by the courts, supported by the defendant's own admission that the sale deed was registered and that the mother-in-law became the owner (!) (!) (!) .
-
The validity of the gift deed was challenged on the grounds that it was executed when the donor was unwell and that no possession was delivered, making the gift allegedly incomplete (!) (!) .
-
The courts held that delivery of possession is not a mandatory requirement for a valid gift of immovable property, and the law permits a gift to be valid even without possession transfer, provided other legal formalities are met (!) (!) (!) .
-
The courts found that the gift deed was properly executed, accepted, and not challenged within a reasonable time, thereby affirming its validity (!) (!) .
-
The issue of whether the plaintiff was in possession was clarified: the plaintiff was entitled to possession based on the valid gift deed, and the defendants' possession was deemed permissive, turning into trespassers only when asked to vacate (!) (!) .
-
The courts dismissed the appeal, upheld the original judgment, and awarded costs, emphasizing that the defendants' delay in vacating the property was unjustified and that the gift deed's validity was established by law (!) .
These points summarize the core legal findings and reasoning of the case without referencing specific case law.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Shri Krishna Podder (respondent No.1) in this appeal filed a suit against her sister-in-law Chhabi Podder and brother Shri Benoy Krishna Podder, husband of the defendant No.1 as well as the Deputy Collector, Sadar Revenue Circle, who was respondent No.3 in the suit.
[2] In this suit it was alleged that the scheduled property was originally owned by Chhabi Podder. She sold this property on 09.07.1975 to her mother-in-law, Sakhin Bala Podder for a consideration of Rs.9,000/-. It is further alleged that though Sakhin Bala Podder became owner of the suit property she permitted her elder son, defendant No.2, husband of the defendant No.1 to continue to possess the said land but this possession was permissive possession. The scheduled land was mutated in favour of the Sakhin Bala Podder. Thereafter on 09.07.1991 Sakhin Bala Pada executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and many other pieces of land. On the same date she also executed another gift deed in favour of Shri Shyama Prashad Podder, another son of Sakhin Bala Podder. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested her brother to vacate the suit land and hand over the possession of the same but he refused to hand over the possession.
[3] The case of the defendants 1 and 2 is that though the land was sold by defendant No.1 to her mother-in-law but this sale was a mere paper transaction and that the mother-in-law never became owner of the suit land. It is also alleged that thereafter the defendants raised certain construction on the suit land to the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, the gift deed cannot affect their rights and is a mere paper transaction. It is also contended that since no possession was delivered pursuant to the gift deed the gift has not been completed and, therefore, is invalid. It was also urged that the gift deed was executed by Sakhin Bala Podder when she was unwell and, therefore, should not be relied upon.
[4] The learned trial Court after recording evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and entitled to get possession thereof. It was also directed that in the khatian, exhibit-3 showing the defendant No.1 to be in reverse possession was illegal and void.
[5] Aggrieved by this judgment the defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal which has been dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal.
[6] This second appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:
“(i) Whether the judgment of both the courts below can be sustained by interpreting the intention of the transferor in terms of Section 8 of the Transfer of the Property Act;
(ii) Whether the findings of the learned courts below that the gift was a valid one contrary to the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be sustained;
(iii) Whether ‘acceptance’ occurring in Section 122 of the T. P. Act is complete without delivering possession of gifted property.”
As far as the question No.1 is concerned I fail to understand that what is the meaning of question No.1. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with operation of transfer, it also provide that unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, the transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee and shall include easements annexed thereto.
[7] The case of the defendants appears to be that the sale deed was a paper transaction with a view to avoid some family problems and it was never acted upon. This submission has rightly been rejected by both the Courts below. The defendant No.2, husband of defendant No.1 has in his cross-examination stated as follows:
“***** In the year 1975 my wife executed a deed of sale in favour of my mother namely, Sakhin Bala Podder and the said deed was registered accordingly. My mother became the owner of the said land by virtue of the said sale deed.*****”
He has admitted that his mother has became owner of the suit land and the
