JAGDISH CHANDER versus SATISH CHANDER AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 27-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
JAGDISH CHANDER
v.
SATISH CHANDER AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2361 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Suit – Gift deed – Validity of – Respondent No.1-plaintiff
alleged that appellant-first defendant by playing fraud on their
mother, got executed a fictitious gift deed without her knowledge
and consent in respect of a suit land – Suit was dismissed by the
trial court – Trial court held that evidence on record was not
sufficient to hold any fraud was played on mother of the parties for
execution of the gift deed – First Appellate Court agreed with the
findings of the trial court – However, High Court allowed the appeal
and reversed the judgments of both the courts below, mainly on the
ground that the gift deed was executed by receiving consideration
of Rs.5000/- – On appeal, held: On a perusal of the copy of the gift
deed,it is clear that what is mentioned on the first page of the
document, is the valuation of the property for the purpose of stamp
duty and registration charges which is arrived at Rs.5000/-, but not
the consideration received by the donor for executing the gift deed
– The gift deed was correctly interpreted by the trial court and the
First Appellate Court – Further, order of mutation also only refers
to the valuation of the property – There was nothing to indicate that
the said amount of Rs.5000/- was paid as consideration to the donor
– Thus, Judgment of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  At the outset, it is to be noted that the gift deed
which is executed in favour of the appellant herein, is a registered
gift deed. It is also clear from the evidence on record that mother
of the respondent no.1-plaintiff and appellant-first defendant has
acquired title to the property by way of Will. Same is evident
from the Ext.D-4, a judgment in another Civil Suit. In the said
suit, it is clearly held that she has acquired title to the property
by way of Will, as such, the property is to be considered as a self-
acquired property of mother of the parties in question.
[Para 13][52-C, D]
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 47
47
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
2.  As there is a serious dispute with regard to receipt of
consideration of Five Thousand Rupees for executing the gift
deed, this Court has carefully perused the copy of the gift deed
which is placed on record. A perusal of the gift deed makes it
clear that what is mentioned on the first page of the document, is
the valuation of the property for the purpose of stamp duty and
registration charges which is arrived at Rs.5,000/-, but not the
consideration received by the donor for executing the gift deed.
The gift deed is correctly interpreted by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court. But by misconstruing the same, the High
Court has held that gift was evidenced by a consideration amount
of Rs.5,000/-. It is true that if the gift is evidenced by
consideration,same cannot be valid one within the meaning of
Section 122 of the T.P. Act. But it is clear from the document
itself that no  consideration is passed on as per the registered
gift deed. Mentioning of Rs.5,000/- in the first page, for the
purpose of valuation, cannot be said to be a consideration received
by the donor for executing the gift deed.  [Para 14][52-D-G]
3.  With reference to the order of mutation Ext.PW3/F, the
High Court held that the order of mutation embodied in Ext.PW3/
F conveys the alienation under Ext.DW2/A and that the same
being a coloured transaction or a sham transaction. On perusal
of the order of mutation, it is seen that the order of mutation also
only refers to the valuation of the property as Rs.5000/-. There
is nothing to indicate that the said amount of Rs.5,000/- has been
paid as consideration to the donor. Both the Gift Deed Ext.DW2/
A as well as the order of the mutation only indicate the valuation
of the property as Rs.5,000/- only for the purpose of stamp duty
or registration charges and for payment of fees for mutation
respectively. The High Court erred in saying that Ext.DW2/A
when read with Ext.PW3/F candidly convey qua the alienation of
the suit land under Ext.DW2/A and the donor receiving
consideration from the donee. [Para 15][53-G, H; 54-B-D]
4.  Further, the High Court fell in error in re-appreciating
the evidence on record to come to a different conclusion than
the findings recorded by the Trial Court, in exercise of power
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.