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

2025 Supreme(Tri) 49

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
 
Sri Gour Gopal Saha, S/o- Lt. Hari Mohan Saha – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Asmita Saha, D/o. Sri Nitai Lal Saha and Ors. – Respondents
RFA No.14 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. B. N. Majumder, Sr. Adv, Mr. K. Deb, Adv., Mr. E. Debbarma, Adv., Ms. R. Majumder, Adv., Mr. B. Banerjee, Adv.

The court affirmed the validity of a gift deed executed by a minor's grandmother, ruling it was properly attested and accepted by the minor's father as her natural guardian.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 3, 122, and 123 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Appeal against decree for declaration and recovery of possession of land - Respondent-plaintiff, a minor, claimed title through a gift deed executed by her grandmother - Appellant contested validity of the gift deed, alleging misrepresentation - Trial Court upheld the gift deed, finding it valid and properly executed - Appellate Court affirmed the decision, ruling that the gift deed was duly attested and accepted by the natural guardian - No infirmity found in the trial court's judgment. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Gift Deed - Validity and Execution - A gift of immovable property must be executed by a registered instrument and attested by at least two witnesses as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court found that the gift deed was validly executed and attested, fulfilling legal requirements. (Paras 10-19)

(C) Evidence - Proof of Execution - Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates that an attesting witness must be called to prove the execution of a document required to be attested - The court ruled that the respondent-plaintiff complied with this requirement by producing an attesting witness. (Paras 17-19)

(D) Issues - The main issues included the maintainability of the suit, validity of the gift deed, ownership of the suit land, and entitlement to mesne profits - The trial court found in favor of the respondent-plaintiff on all issues. (Paras 3, 9) (E) Findings of Court - The trial court's findings were based on evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence supporting the validity of the gift deed. (Paras 10-19) (F) Ratio Decidendi - The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the gift deed was validly executed and that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. (Paras 19-20) (G) Result - Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the trial court upheld. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment dated 09.03.2021 and decree dated 15.03.2021 delivered by Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, Udaipur, Gomati District in connection with case No.T.S.38 of 2016.

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.1(ii) and also heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B. N. Majumder assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. K. Deb, Mr. E. Debbarma and Ms. R. Majumder appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. Learned Counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee also appeared on behalf of the respondent-defendant Nos.1(iii)-(vii).

03. Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal, let us discuss about the subject matter of the dispute amongst the rival parties. The respondent-plaintiff filed one suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit land measuring 0.084 acres appertaining to Khatian No.1870 under Mouja- Udaipur as described in the schedule of the plaint before the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.). The respondent-plaintiff, being a minor instituted the suit through her father before the Learned Trial Court Sri Nitai Lal Saha as a natural guardian and next friend with a prayer for declaration of title over the suit land, recovery of possession thereof with further claim for mesne profits against the original defendant Sikha Rani Saha (since dead). The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that the original defendant Sikha Rani Saha (since dead) who was her grandmother was the owner of the aforesaid suit property. On 17.04.2009 said Sikha Rani Saha executed a deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff gifting the suit property in her favour. The gift deed was registered at the house of the principal defendant on commission. Since the respondent-plaintiff was on that relevant point of time a minor, so, the gift was accepted by her father Sri Nitai Lal Saha on her behalf. After execution of the gift deed, Sikha Rani Saha also delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff which was accepted by her father as her natural guardian. As the plot of land is attached to the residential plot of the original defendant, so, it remained under the constructive possession of the respondent-plaintiff through the original defendant Sikha Rani Saha as she allowed said Sikha Rani Saha being her grandmother to utilize the land for the purpose of growing plants and vegetables. After few months of execution of deed of gift when the respondent-plaintiff through her father applied for mutation of the suit land before the Revenue Authority that time it was denied on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff did not have possession over the suit land and her appeal against such order of refusal is pending. It was also the case of the respondent-plaintiff that said Sikha Rani Saha in collusion with other near relatives and pressure from daughters started showing hostile title to the suit property and also started declaring that the principal defendant did not execute any such gift deed and the father of the respondent-plaintiff got some signatures on some stamp papers and by pressurizing her got the gift deed executed. The original defendant before the Learned Trial Court contested the suit by filing written statement denying the assertions of the respondent-plaintiff and also took the plea that the suit was not maintainable, the description of the suit property was not proper and it was not properly stamped. It was further asserted that she never executed any gift deed in favour of the plaintiff nor she handed over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Further, according to the principal defendant of the original suit, Nitai Lal Saha, the father of the respondent-plaintiff is her younger son and on his invitation she, i.e. the principal defendant and her husband went to Aurangabad to stay therein for a considerable period and during that period, Nitai Saha took all care of his pare












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