IMPORTANT POINTS
Existence of a substantial question of law is condition precedent for interference under Section 100.
A question settled by the highest Court, or mere question of applying the well settled general principles to the question, or the plea raised being palpably absurd are not substantial question of law.
Perversity in arriving at a factual finding gives rise to a substantial question of law.
When a substantial question of law existed and was addressed and answered by High Court, the judgment in second appeal will not be liable to be set aside merely because the question was erroneously framed.
Where recital of gift deed recorded delivery of possession to the done, presumption of acceptance would arise.
When the Trial court and the First appellate court proceeded on wrong assumption, High Court would be right to decline to accept the concurrent findings.
Article 59 of Limitation Act has no application in case of a document null and void ab initio.

JUDGMENT

INDIRA BANERJEE J.

1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 12th March, 2009 in Second Appeal No. 229 of 1996 passed by a Single Bench of the Kerala High Court, whereby the High Court has set aside the concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and declared that the suit property belongs to the Chuzhali Bhagavathi Dharmadeva Bhandaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bhandaram’).

2. The High Court further declared that the deed of assignment dated 31st July, 1971 executed by Raman Aithan Ashari in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit property was null and void and not binding on the respondents and allowed the respondents to recover possession of the suit property for and on behalf of the Bhandaram.

3. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are very briefly enumerated hereinafter: Raman Aithan Ashari, hereinafter referred to as Raman, executed a deed of gift of the said property in favour of the Bhandaram. According to the appellants, though the deed of gift stated that possession had been delivered, there was no evidence of acceptance of the gift or of the Bhandaram being in possession. No presumption of acceptance of the gift could arise on the basis of the recital of delivery of possession in the deed of gift as the donee was only an inanimate body and there was no evidence of any person accepting the gift or entering into possession on its behalf.

4. The appellants contend that the gift did not take effect and Raman continued in possession, paying rent and revenue for the property in his name. He later cancelled the gift by a deed of cancellation dated 15th July, 1971 and sold the property to the original appellant on 31st July, 1971. The original appellant was given possession thereafter and he made improvements to the suit property.

5. According to the appellants, on or about 7th December, 1981, long after the original appellant had purchased the suit property, the respondents being the family members of Raman, and members of Kizhakke Veethil Tarwad filed the instant suit for declaration that the Deed of Cancellation and the deed of transfer were invalid, null and void.

6. It was the case of the respondents that they were owners of the Bhandaram which had come to own the suit property by virtue of the deed of gift. Upon execution of the deed of gift Raman had divested himself of title to the suit property and hence was incompetent to execute any further deed, transferring the suit property to the appellants herein and/or their predecessor in interest being the original appellant.

7. The appellants contend that the appellants are bonafide purchasers for value. They resisted the suit contending that the gift had not taken effect, as the same had not been accepted, and therefore Raman was perfectly justified in cancelling the gift and selling the property to the appellant.

8. On behalf of the appellants, it is argued that the Trial Court went into detailed analysis of the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the gift executed by Raman had not taken effect, as it had not been accepted. Accordingly the deed of cancellation as well as the sale to the appellant were held to be valid and the suit was dismissed. The findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

9. It is true, as rightly argued by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the High Court does not, in Second Appeal, embark upon re-analysis of evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. It is well settled that the condition precedent for interference under Section 100 of the CPC is the existence of a substantial question of law.

10. What constitutes substantial question of law has been settled by innumerable decisions of this Court. Reference may be made to the Constitution Bench decision in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons VS. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314.

11. In Chunilal (Supra), a Constitution Bench of this C