Gift Deed Not Effective When Possession Not Handed Over; Can Be Cancelled : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently upheld the cancellation of a gift deed after noting that the possession was not handed over and that the deed was not acted upon by the parties. Hence, the High Court agreed with the trial court's decree dismising a suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed.

The bench of Justice AA Nakkiran agreed with the finding of the court below that the possession was not handed over and the gift deed was not acted upon hence, it was not a valid gift deed.

The court also took into consideration the decision in Kali Naicker and others Vs. V.Jaganathan and others 2013 9 CTC 318 wherein it was held as follows:

"14. The above said ratios laid down by the various judgements referred to supra would leave no doubt that to establish a valid gift, there has to be acceptance supported by relevant materials. As discussed above, admittedly there is no material to support the contentions of the Plaintiffs that the gift deed executed in their favour by their grandfather has been acted upon."

Background

The Appellant is the plaintiff in the original suit. The 4th defendant is her mother and defendants 1-3 are her sisters. The suit property and other properties belonged to the 4th Defendant. The 4th Defendant had gifted the suit property, by a Registered Gift Deed dated, 13.06.2012, in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and since then, they have been in possession of the same and they became the absolute owners of the same.

The plaintiff contended that she and the Defendants 1 to 3 had sold 0.37 cents of land out of the total 2.37, by a sale deed, and paid the amount to the 4th Defendant for her needs. The 4th Defendant was also an attestor in the Sale Deed.   

Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the 4th Defendant had executed a deed for cancellation of the Gift Deed. It is contended by the Plaintiff that the same is not sustained in law. The gift deed is an irrevocable and unconditional one. Even as per GO.Ms.No.139, dated 25.07.2007 and the decision of Madras High Court reported in D.Mohan and another Vs. Sub Registrar, Chennai and others (2012) 5 MLJ 169, the Sub-Registrars have been directed not to cancel any document without consent of other parties. 

The plaintiff submitted that since the 4th respondent was making arrangements to alienate the property, the suit was filed for declaration that the deed of cancellation of Gift Deed is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1-3. The plaintiff also sought for a permanent injunction against the 4th Defendant and for partition of the suit property into 4 eaual shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff. 

The 4th defendant, on the other hand, denied that the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1-3 had obtained possession through the Gift Deed. The 4th Defendant submitted that the original document were still retained by her with the consent and concurrence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3. The 4th Defendant argued that the Gift Deed was not executed out of her own valition and that the Plaintiff had persuaded her to execute the setllement deed in favour of herself and Defendants 1-3 by giving false assurance to take care of her. The Plaintiff's actions were adverse to the interest of the Defendants 1 to 3.

The Defendant also submitted that the revenue records and the assessment were still in her name and that the Settlement Deed was a sham and nominal document. It was also submitted that the Cancellation Deed was executed with the consent and concurrence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1-3. She further submitted that she was still in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further, the Gift Deed was not acted upon. Thus, the contention of the Plaintiff that she and the Defendants 1-3 had become absolute owners of the property and that the 4th Defendant had lost her right by virtue of execution of gift deed was not true. Thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

The court, after consideration was of the opinion that the decision of the court below did not warrant any interference and hence dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others

Case No: A.S 327 of 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.G.Suryanarayanan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.V.Raghavachari (R1-4)