advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
peaceful possession
Hindu Law-Gift of ancestral property by the father in favour of his daughters through registered settlement deed-Father later claiming that the settlement deed got executed by misrepresentation and fraud-Plea by father that his signature was obtained as a witness to a sale deed and not for execution of settlement deed and that he has no capacity to gift to his daughters the Joint family property-Suit by daughters for permanent injunction for restraining the father from interfering with peaceful possession-Trial Court dismissed the suit-Confirmed by First Appellate Court and High Court Held, on facts and evidence, the gift was not vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation-Further, father has capacity to gift ancestral property to daughters to a reasonable extent. The respondent, by a registered settlement deed, settled the suit property to his appellant-daughters out of natural love and affection for them. After 5 years, the respondent asked the appellants to vacate the property and tried to trespass into the property. The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction before trial court for restraining the respondent and his associates from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respond-ent resisted the suit contending that the suit property was an ancestral property; that settlement deed was not executed in favour of the respondents; that the appellants misrepresented the respondent taking advantage of his addiction to liquor for signing the sale deed of the property purchased by the appellants as an attesting witness and instead got the settlement deed signed. The trial court dismissed the suit of the appellants holding that the settlement deed was got executed by misrepresentation and that the respondent had no power to make a gift of a part of his ancestral properties in favour of his daughters. This was confirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. In appeal, the appellants contended that the finding of fact by the lower courts regarding execution of settlement deed is vitiated due to misreading of the statement of one of the attesting witnesses: that the respondent, being the karta of the Joint Hindu family had the authority to make a gift of ancestral immoveable property to a reasonable extent to his daughters. The respondent contended that he had no authority to gift the only ancestral property possessed by the family in favour of his daughters. Citation: 2004 AIR 1284,2003(6 )Suppl.SCR605 ,2004(1 )SCC295 ,2003(10 )SCALE600 ,2003(10 )JT289= Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Finding recorded by the trial court clearly shows that the court misread and misconstrued the testimony of the attesting witness PW 2. In his deposition, PW 2 has clearly stated that he was invited by the respondent to be a witness. He has nowhere stated that the respondent was taken for affixing signatures as witness. If respond-ent was to be a witness, then there was no need to ask PW2 and other witness to accompany the respondent or for them to sign the document. PW 2 also deposed that the respondent affixed his signatures on the settlement deed (Ex Al) after reading the same, that he has signed Exhibit Al as a witness and that he knew the respondent. Suggestion put to him that signatures of the respondent on Exhibit Al were obtained by threat was denied. The trial court did not refer to this part of testimony of PW 2 at all. In the cross- examination, PW 2 has stated that the fact that the respondent had invited him for signing as a witness has been read to him as if PW 2 had stated that the respondent was taken for affixing signatures as a witness to some documents on the date when the deed of settlement Exhibit Al was executed. This is a clear misreading of the testimony of PW 2. The trial court also failed to note that the evidence of respondent lacked total credibility especially in the light of his conduct in denying his signature on the settlement deed, vakalatnama as well as on the summons served on him. Projection made by the respondent in his testimony that the appellants taking advantage of the fact that he was a drunkard got the settlement deed signed fraudulently cannot be accepted. Respondent took no steps to get the settlement deed cancelled though, the appellants had been living in the house for five years after the execution of the settlement deed. In his statement he does not say that he did not know about the execution of the settlement deed. Plea taken by him that he was taken to the Sub-Registrar’s office to be a witness to a sale deed by his son-in-law cannot be accepted as it has not been proved on record that the respondent’s son-in-law had in fact purchased any house site. Findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the First appellate court and the High Court based on misreading of evidence are liable to be set aside. The findings recorded on misreading of evidence being perverse cannot be sustained by law. [612-E-H; 613-A-D] 2.1. A father can make a gift of ancestral immoveable property within reasonable limits, keeping in view, the total extent of the property held by the family in favour of his, daughter at the time of her marriage or even long after her marriage. [617-E-F] 2.2. Question as to whether a particular gift is within reasonable limits or not has to be judged according to the status of the family at the time of making a gift, the extent of the immoveable property owned by the family and the extent of property gifted. No hard and fast rule prescribing quantitative limits of such a gift can be laid down. The answer to such a question would vary from family to family. The question of reasonableness or otherwise of the gift made has to be assessed vis-a-vis the total value of the property held by the family. Simply because the gifted property is a house, it cannot be held that the gift made was not within the reasonable limits. It is basically a question of fact. If on facts, it is found that the gift was not within reasonable limits, such a gift would not be upheld. It was for the respondent to plead and prove that the gift made by the father was excessive and unreasonable keeping in view the total holding of the family. In the absence of any pleadings or proof on these points, it cannot be held that the gift made in this case was not within the reasonable limits of the property held by the family. The respondent has failed to plead and prove that the gift made was to unreasonable extent keeping in view, the total holding of the family. The first appellate court and the High Court thus erred in non-suiting the appellants on this account. [617-G-H; 618-A-E] 2.3. The respondent had the capacity to make a gift to a reasonable extent of ancestral immoveable property in favour of his daughters. The gift was not vitiated by fraud of misrepresentation. The appellants are held to be the absolute owners or the suit property and the respondent is injuncted from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant perpetually. [618-F-G] Kamala Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, [1957] SCR 452; Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh AND ANOTHER v. Malappa, [1964] 4 SCR 497 and Ammathayee Ammal AND ANOTHER v. Kumaresan AND Ors., [1967] 1 SCR 353, referred to. Anivillah Sundararamaya v. Cherla Seethamma AND Ors., (1911) 21 MLJ 695; Pugalila Vettorammal AND ANOTHER v. Vettor Goundan, (1912) MLJ 321; Devalaktuni Sithamahalakshmamma AND Ors. v. Pamulpati Kotayya AND Ors., AIR (1936) Madras 825; Karuppa Gounder AND Ors. v. Palaniammal AND Ors., (1963) 1 MLJ 86; The Commissioner of Gift Tax v. Tej Nath, (1972) PLR (74) 1 and Tara Sabuani v. Raghunath, AIR (1963) Orissa 59, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16757 of 1996.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 16757 of 1996 PETITIONER: R. Kuppayee & Anr. RESPONDENT: Raja Gounder DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/2003 BENCH: R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T BHAN, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts … Continue reading
CONDONATION OF DELAY= In the facts of this case it is clear that of all the three ladies, who were the appellants, one of them was pursuing the case and she fell sick. Therefore, she was not in a position to pursue the legal remedy with due diligence as a result of which the appeal was filed with a delay of 63 days. The delay of 63 days is not a delay for a long period and there has been some explanation for the delay. The High Court should have, before passing the impugned judgment, considered the explanation for the delay along with the facts of the case, the position of the parties, the nature of the litigation and the period of delay. The High Court should also have considered that it has been settled by a catena of cases that, unless the delay is gross, an explanation for the same should be liberally construed. It appears that the High Court has not been able to consider all these relevant facts in their correct perspective before passing the impugned order. 8
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9059 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.18191/2009) Poonam & others …Appellant(s) – Versus – Harish Kumar and another …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This civil appeal is directed against … Continue reading
Registration Act, 1908: s.49, proviso – Unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of the contract – Evidence Act, 1872 – Specific performance – Transfer of property Act, 1882. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the courts below erred in holding that an unregistered sale deed was not admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of the contract. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The Trial Court erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed in evidence in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the High Court ought to have corrected the said error by setting aside the order of the trial court. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act. By admission of an unregistered sale deed in evidence in a suit for specific performance as evidence of contract, none of the provisions of 1908 Act is affected; rather court acts in consonance with proviso appended to Section 49 of 1908 Act. [Paras 8, 11, 16] [519-C-D; 521-A-E; 525-B] K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 564, relied on. Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah v. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy (1999) 7 SCC 114, referred to. Case Law Reference: (2008) 8 SCC 564 relied on Para 12 (1999) 7 SCC 114 referred to Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3192 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P.(PD) No. 261 of 2008. K.V. Vishwanathan, B. Rajunath, Vijay Kumar for the Appellant. T.S.R. Venkatramana, G.S. Mani, R. Satish for the Respondents.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3192 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1451 of 2009] S. Kaladevi …. Appellant Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA,J. Leave granted. 2. The short question is one of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a … Continue reading
no suit for injunction, without declaration title =The issue of maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction simplicitor also needs to be examined from the scheme of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Endowments Act”). The Authorities under the Act are empowered to remove any encroachments or unauthorised occupations of the endowment lands. Section 151 of the Act lays down that no suit or legal proceeding for redressal of a dispute shall be instituted in any Court of law except under and inconformity with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 84 contemplates a situation where a party aggrieved by a direction of removal of encroachment can file a suit. It proves for filing the suit by a person aggrieved only on the ground that the charitable and religious institution or endowment has no title to the land, building or the space. Therefore, it is implicit in the scheme of the Endowments Act that a person cannot institute a suit in a civil Court except contending that charitable or religious institution or endowment has no title to the property in dispute. If the plaintiffs assert that the property is that of their own and file a suit against the Archakas and Authorities of the temple, they have to necessarily make a mention in their plaint as to why the authorities of the temple or the archakas, as the case may be, are interfering with their possession. If their case is that such interference is on the footing that the suit land belongs to the temple, they have to invariably seek the relief of declaration of title.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1407 of 2004 15-06-2011 Attada Gangu Naidu and another Deepala Chandra Mouli and others Counsel for theAppellants:Sri.K.Somakonda Reddy Counsel for the respondents:Sri.V.T.M.Prasad :JUDGEMENT: This second appeal is directed against the Judgement and Decree dt. 4.8.2004 in A.S.No. 17 of 2002 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 