WASANTHA COORAY

VS.

INDRANI COORAY

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
MALALGODA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
SC/APPEAL/174/2014
SC/SPL/LA/66/2014
CA/549/98/F
DC MT. LAVINIA 605/96/L
JULY 10, 2018

Revocation of an irrevocable deed of gift on gross ingratitude-Degree of proof of ingratitude

The plaintiff father gifted a house subject to his life interest to the defendant son. The son continuously harassed and intimidated the father to make him vacate the house so the son could come into occupation of it: the son inter alia scolded the father in obscene language and on one occasion assaulted the father causing injuries to his fore head and lips.

Held :

Ingratitude is a frame of mind which has to be inferred from the donee's conduct. Such an attitude of mind will be indicated either by a single act or by a series of acts. What constitutes ingratitude is a question of fact to be decided on a case by case basis. An assault to the donor by the donee is unmistakably an act of ingratitude. An irrevocable deed of gift can be revoked on proof of ingratitude.

Cases referred to :

1. Podinona Ranaweera Menike v. Rohini Senanayake [1992] 2 Sri LR 180
2. Krishnaswamy v. Thillaiyampalam 59 NLR 265
3. Manuelpillai v. Nallamma 52 NLR 221
4. Sivarasipillai v. Anthonypillai 40 NLR 47
5. Stella Perera v. Margaret Silva [2002) 1 Sri LR 169
6. Fernando v, Perera 63 NLR 236
7. Hamine v. Gunawardene 17 NLR 507

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

M.S.A. Wadood with Palitha Subasinghe, Tharanga Edirisinghe and J. Beruwalage for the Defendant-Appellant-Appellant.

Daya Guruge with R. Wimalaweera for the Substituted Plaintiff? Respondent-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

February 18, 2020

M.N.B. FERNANDO, J.

The defendant-appellant-appellant has come before this Court challenging the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 19-03-2014. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the District Court of Mount Lavinia dated 05-06-1998 granted in favour of the original plaintiff.

On 25-09-2014 this Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on the following questions of law: -

(i) Have the learned judges of the Original Court and the Hon. Court of Appeal erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff? respondent-respondent is entitled to revoke the said deed of gift according to the facts, circumstances and/or evidence adduced in this case.

(ii) Has the learned judge of the Original Court erred in law in concluding that the defendant-appellant-petitioner had acted in gross ingratitude of the respondent by scolding the respondent in foul language and/or by intimidating him.

(iii) In determining that a single blow was sufficient to constitute gross ingratitude did the learned judges of the Original Court and the Hon. Court of Appeal err in law in not considering the state of mind of the Donee as held in Krishnaswamy v. Thillaiyampalam (1957) 59NLR 265.

(iv) Have the learned judges of the Original Court and the Hon. Court of Appeal failed to fairly, objectively and judicially analyze the evidence adduced in this case according to the facts and circumstances of this case in holding that the respondent is entitled to revoke the said Deed of Gift.

According to the Petition of Appeal filed before this Court, the deceased plaintiff-respondent ("the plaintiff') bestowed upon the defendant? appellant-appellant ("the defendant/appellant"), his youngest son, the dwelling house, the plaintiff was living at Kirulapone, Colombo by way of an irrevocable deed of gift retaining for himself the life interest.

In view of the subsequent conduct of the defendant in demanding the house, using foul language, assaulting the father and threatening him with ...death, the plaintiff moved the District Court to set aside the said deed of gift upon the ground of gross ingratitude of the defendant.

The defendant denied the allegation of gross ingratitude and assault of the father.

The