Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38668
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J
Meganathan – Appellant
Versus
Kamardeen – Respondent
S.A(MD)No.125 of 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Ramesh
For the Respondents: M.Rajaraman
An oral gift under Muslim law is valid without registration regardless of value upon acceptance; furthermore, a title holder who possesses a registered sale deed and patta derives lawful ownership, and the onus shifting to prove an original owner is alive lies with the challenger.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Sale defined as transfer of ownership - Oral gift under Muslim Law - Valid if accepted - Requires no reduction to writing or registration - Where patta stands in names of donors and property was conveyed by registered instrument, sale is valid.
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 108 and 114 - Presumption of death - Burden of proof rests upon one asserting party is alive, provided evidence of whereabouts is absent.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding properties sold to him by the daughters of the original owner, who allegedly derived rights through an oral gift. The defendant, who initially acted as a broker for the plaintiff and witnessed the sale, later claimed the properties were purchased from the original owner or his power agent, asserting the original owner was alive in Malaysia, despite the owner's death having been long presumed.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the oral gift was established and the plaintiff possessed valid title through the registered sale deed. The defendant failed to prove the original owner was alive and created bogus documents to cloud the plaintiff’s title.
Issues: 1. Validity of title in the absence of written proof of an oral gift. 2. Presumption of death under the Evidence Act. 3. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: An oral gift under Muslim law is valid regardless of value if accepted; subsequent sale by registered instrument conveys valid title. A party claiming the owner is alive bears the burden of proof, failing which the court may rely on the presumption of ownership based on possession and patta.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the dispute regarding property title and competing claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. substantial questions of law and arguments presented by parties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis of oral gift validity, title verification, and evidence evaluation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. final confirmation of previous judgments and dismissal of appeal. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No. 127 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and in A.S.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.
2.The respondent herein as the plaintiff, instituted a suit in O.S.No.127 of 2000, on the file of the trial Court as against the defendant seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.
4.According to the plaintiff, the suit properties are situated in Kosavankudi Village and the same originally belonged to one Mohamed Ismail and during his young age, he went to Malaysia and passed away leaving behind him, his three daughters, namely Makroon Beevi, Savvanu Beevi and Hairiya Beevi. The original owner Mohamed Ismail has orally gifted the suit properties and its adjoining property in favour of his three daughters. The said Makroon Beevi and Savvanu Beevi have sold the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 31.07.2000 and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as a rightful owner. The defendant was known to the plaintiff and he had acted as a broker for the sale effected in favour of the plaintiff and in fact, he put his signature as an attesting witness in the sale deed, dated 31.07.2000. Since the defendant has acted as a broker in between the plaintiff and his vendors, the plaintiff has directed the defendant to receive the original sale deed from the Sub Registrar Office. After receiving the same, the defendant failed to hand it over to the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the defendant had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a commission from the plaintiff and he has refused to give the same and having enraged at the conduct of the plaintiff, the defendant had instigated the vendors of the plaintiff to cancel the sale deed, dated 31.07.2000 by a cancellation deed, dated 21.08.2000. Further, the defendant had created a false sale deed in his favour on 21.08.2000 in respect of the suit properties. The alleged cancellation deed, dated 21.08.2000 is not valid in law. The defendant has not derived any title in his favour under a sale deed, dated 21.08.2000. The plaintiff has paid the entire sale amount to his vendors. Further, the defendant had demanded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff so as to permit him to enjoy the suit properties. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the abovestated relief.
5.The defendant filed a written statement admitting the fact that the suit properties originally belonged to Mohamed Ismail. But it is false to say that for the past 25 years, he has not come down from Malaysia and further, it is false that he has passed away and even now, he is alive. It is also equally false to say that his three daughters have enjoyed the suit properties and its adjoining property after changing the patta in their names. The sale deed, dated 31.07.2000 executed in favour of the plaintiff has not come into effect. It is false to say that the defendant has acted as a broker in between the plaintiff and his vendors and the plaintiff has directed the defendant to receive the original sale deed from the Sub Registrar Office. The sale deed, dated 31.07.2000 has been cancelled by a cancellation deed, dated 21.08.2000 and after cancellation, the defendant has purchased the suit properties unde
