The unilateral cancellation of an accepted gift deed is impermissible under the Transfer of Property Act.

EASWARAN S., J.

------------------------------------------

R.S.A. No.1183 of 2014 ------------------------------------------

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2025 JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings rendered by the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara in O.S.No.670 of 2002 confirmed in A.S.No.263 of 2010 by the Additional District Court - II, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. According to the plaintiff, plaint A schedule property originally belonged to one Velayudhan Vamadevan. Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are his children. On 27.02.1997, he executed a Will bequeathing the right title and interest over the property in favour of the plaintiff. Vamadevan died on 08.07.1998. During the life time of Sri.Vamadevan, by document No.365/84, he had gifted the property in favour of the first defendant and that the gift was void of maintainability never intended to be acted upon and hence he executed a registered deed by which the gift was cancelled.

The cancellation deed was executed on 20.02.1993. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the claim and contended that the father of the defendants had executed the gift deed after which he had no authority to cancel the same unilaterally. The Will, if any, would take effect only if the gift deed is not in existence. Since the gift deed had come into effect, the suit for declaration based on the alleged Will cannot be sustained. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A12 documents were produced and PW1 to PW5 were examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B33 documents were produced and DW1 was examined. X1 to X5 series were third party exhibits. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came into conclusion that the unilateral cancellation of the gift deed is impermissible in law and therefore the deed has no legal sanctity and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.263 of 2010, which was also dismissed and hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Govind Padmanabhan R., learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in as much as the gift was not accepted in terms of provisions contained under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , the cancellation is valid. Once the cancellation is valid, then necessarily, the plaintiff is entitled to fall back on the registered Will to sustain the plea of declaration of title and recovery of possession. He further pointed out that the courts below had misappreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and had erred in dismissing the suit.

5. Per contra, Sri.Govind Padmanabhan R., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that cancellation of the gift was unilateral and against the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Once the gift has come into effect, it is not possible for the donor to cancel the same. He further pointed out that going by the terms and conditions of the cancellation deed, it is stated that the original of the gift deed was destroyed whereas the gift deed was produced by the defendants. Therefore, when sufficient evidence was available before the courts below, to conclude that the gift having been accepted, the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below does not require any interference by this Court.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the judgments rendered by the courts below.

7. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised on the side of the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises