LexASOKAN versus LAKSHMIKUTTY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SO KAN A v. LAKSHMIKUTTY & ORS. DECEMBER 14, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Transfer of Property Act; Ss.122 & 123: Gift-Donor-parents executed a deed of gift transferring c possession of property gifted in favour of his son-donee-Averment in a deed of gift in regard to handing over of possession-Whether amounts to sufficient proof of acceptance thereof by donee-Held:- In order to constitute a valid gift, acceptance thereof is essential-Even a silence may sometimes indicate acceptance-Overt act not necessary D as express acceptance need not be required for completing the transaction of gift-When a registered document is executed, presumption arises in regard to the correctness thereof-Onus lies on the donor and not on the donee-The fact that possession had been given to do nee raises a presumption of acceptance-Thus, the gift in E question is a valid gift-Once a gift is complete, it cannot be rescinded on the ground of subsequent conduct of the donee-Moreover, on facts, S.91 of the Evidence Act not attracted-Evidence Act, 1872. Evidence Act, 1872; Ss. 91 & 92: F Gift-Plea against recitals in the deed of gift-Permissibility of -Held: Not permissible. The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether an averment made by the donor-Parents in the deed of gift executed in favour of his son in regard to handing over G possession of certain property is sufficient proof of acceptance thereof by the donee to constitute a valid gift. Appellant contended that the first Appellate Court as also the 901 H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A High Court had failed to take into consideration the fact that the deeds of gift being not onerous ones and the factum of handing over of possession of the properties which were the subject matter of the gift, having been stated in the deeds of gift themselves, it was not necessary for him to prove that he accepted the same; and that B keeping in view the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no plea contrary to or inconsistent with the recitals made in the deeds of gift is permissible to be raised. Respondents submitted that acceptance of gift being a condition precedent for a valid gift and the first Appellate Court and the High C Court having arrived at a finding that the same was not accepted, the impugned judgments should not be interfered with; that the recitals made in the deeds of gift are not conclusive and, thus, evidence to show that the same were not correct is admissible in evidence; and that even assuming that Sections 91 and 92 of the D Indian Evidence Act would be applicable, by reason thereof, only the onus has shifted on the donor and as they have discharged the same, the impugned judgments are unassailable. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispufo that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. However, the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending F to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption G of acceptance. [Para 14) (907-C-DJ Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty, AIR (1997) Orissa 131; Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR (1995) Mad 415 and Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey, AIR (1975) Patna 140, referred to. H 1.2. While determining the question as to whether delivery of ASOKAN v. LAKSHMIKUTTY 903 possession would constitute acceptance of a gift or not, the A relationship between the parties plays an important role. It is not a case that the appellant was not aware of the recitals contained in deeds of gift. The very fact that the par.ents-donor contended that the donee, son, was to perform certain obligations, is itself indicative of the fact that the parties were aware thereabout. Even a silence B may sometime indicate acceptance. It is not necessary to prove any overt act in respect thereof as an express acceptance is not necessary for completing the transaction of gift. [Para 16] [907-F-G] c Narayani Bhanumathi and Anr. v. Kart
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.