Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1543
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
RAICHAL VARGHESE @ AMMINI – Appellant
Versus
KOCHURANI @ ALI – Respondent
RSA 547/2014
SRI.C.A.NAVAS, SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR, SMT.C.S.SIMI, SMT.ASHI SUKUMARAN RAVIVARMA, SRI.BINU PAUL, SRI.B.R.ANEES, SRI.D.BIJU, SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU, SRI.R.SANJITH, SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH, SRI.R.SASITHARAN
A valid gift deed can supersede subsequent settlement deeds, and the absence of a substantial question of law renders a second appeal inadmissible.
Headnote:
Appeal - Property Dispute - CPC Section 100, Specific Relief Act Section 34 - The court discussed the substantial questions of law involved in property disputes, emphasizing the effect of a gift deed on settlement deeds and the criteria for maintaining a second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to set aside a settlement deed executed by the second defendant in favor of the first defendant, arguing that a prior gift deed conferred them title and possession over the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the gift deed was valid and that the plaintiff held title and possession of the property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the lower court's decree.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appeal posed a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC, particularly in regard to the validity and effect of the prior gift deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a second appeal must involve a substantial question of law and found that the challenge to the validity of the gift deed had no merit, supporting the lower courts' findings.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed without admission as it raises no substantial question of law.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2023 This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , by defendants 1 and 2, challenging the decree and judgment dated 24.01.2014 in A.S.No.111/2011 on the files of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor, arose out of the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2011 in O.S.No.309/2009 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. During the pendency of the first appeal, the 2nd appellant died and his legal heirs brought on record as additional respondents 2 to
4. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' for convenience.
4. O.S.No.309/2009 was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the settlement deed No.4814/05 of Perumbavoor SRO executed by one Alexander, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, in favour of the 1st defendant, who is one among the daughters of Alexander. According to the plaintiff, as early in the year 1982, Alexander executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff vide gift deed No.4778/1982 and thereby the plaintiff perfected title, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the settlement deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant after executing the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff is void. Accordingly, reliefs to set aside the above document and prohibitory injunction were sought for.
5. The defendants appeared and resisted the suit, contenting that the gift deed was not accepted by the plaintiff and accordingly, the same has no legal effect. Therefore, the title of the 1st defendant over the plaint schedule property, on the strength of settlement deed No.4814/05 of Perumbavoor SRO, became complete. Therefore, none of the reliefs sought for in the plaint were liable to be granted.
6. The court below ventured the matter and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW3 examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. DW1 and DW2 examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked.
7. On hearing both sides, the trial court granted decree as under:
“In the result, the suit is hereby decreed as follows:
1. The settlement deed No.4814/05 of SRO, Perumbavoor (Ext.A3) executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is hereby set aside.
2. The first defendant and her men are hereby restrained from alienating the plaint schedule property or from creating any documents in respect of plaint schedule property or from causing any damage to the house in the plaint schedule property or from preventing the plaintiff from entering the plaint schedule property, or from doing any act detrimental to the plaintiff's title and possession over plaint schedule property.
3. The parties shall bear their respective costs in the suit.
4. The office directed to forward a copy of the decree and judgment to the SRO, Perumbavoor as provided under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act .”
8. Though appeal was filed before the appellate court, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the finding of the trial court.
9. At the time of admission hearing, the learned counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that Exts.A1 gift deed No.4778/1982 was not acted upon and therefore, the title of the 1st defendant over the plaint schedule property, in view of settlement deed No.4814/05, marked as Ext.A3, became complete. It is argued further that even though as per the available evidence, the property has been in possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant, where she has been conducting a poultry farm, recovery of possession of the same was not sought for and therefore, the suit is hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act , 1963. It is also argued that the extent of property described in the plaint is not correct. As such the learned counsel for the defendants pressed for admission of this case.
10. Dispelling
