KUPPUSWAMY CHETTIAR versus A. S. P.A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 06-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KUPPUSWAMY CHETTIAR 
·V. 
A. S. P.A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER 
September 6, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, J J.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 
1882, s. 
123-Registered Release Deed-
.exec.uted without consideration in presence of nwre than Hva witnesses-
Whether effectively passes 'title-Whether can only enlarge interest of re-
leasee--Or transfer title to one havlng no ritle. 
By a will made in August 1931, P, who was the grand-father of the 
respondents, bequeithed certa.in 
immovable ·properties to 
~is paternal 
uncle's daughter K. 
In January 1952, the respondents instituted a 
suit 
against sev;iral per$0ns including K challenging inter alia the validity of 
the bequest made by P. 
In February 1952 K died· leaving as her heir the 
appellant who was her husband's brother's son. On February 25, 1952, 
the appellant executed a deed in favour of the respondents, releasing the 
.Wt properties, including certain outstaodings due from third parties, and 
!his deed was registered on February 26, 1952. The respondents thj>re-
upon filed an ·application in their suit asking for an order that in view of 
the release deed, .the properties covered by it be removed from the 'scope 
of the suit and the plaint amended accordingly; and this application was 
allowed by the Court. 
In January 1955, the appellant instituted the present suit osking for 
a decree setting asi<;le the release deed of February 1952. on the groun.d 
that it was vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud, deceit and undue influence. 
He also alleged that the deed being a i!eed of release could not take effect 
as_ a conveyance and did not effectively pass title to the properties. The 
trial Court decreed the suit holding that the deed was procured by mis-
representation and also that it did not effectively convey the properties. 
However, the High Court, in appeal, 
set aside the finding of the trial 
Court and dismissed the suit. 
In the appeal to this Court it was also contended, inter alia, on behalf 
of the appellant, that a releafo can only enlarge an existing title of the 
release and there can be no release in favour of· a releasee who has no in-
terest in the property. 
HELD: (i) On the facts, the appellant had failed 
to establish that 
the deed was p'rocl!red by misrepresentation. 
(ii) The release deed clearly showed an intention to transfer title and 
its operative words sufficiently conveyed the title. As the 
release was 
without any consideration. the deed, on its true construction, took effec& 
as a gift. The gift was effectively made by a registered instrument signed 
by the donor and attested by more than two witnesses. 
[278 C-BJ 
T. Mammo v. K. Ramunni, A.I.R. 1966 S.C.R. 33, 340: folloWed. 
(Hi) In the present case the ,deed was in favour of a person having 
oo interest in the property and it could not take effect as an enlargement 
of an existing estate. It was intended to be and was a transfer of owner-
ship. 
A deed called a deed of release can; by using words of sufficient 
amplitude, transfer title to one having no title before the transfer. {?79 
C-D] 
Hutchi Gowder v. 
Bh.ecmtJ Goivder, [1959] 2 M.L.J. 
32:4; 337· 
S. P. Chinnathambiar v. Y. R. P. Chinnathambiar, (1953} 2 M.L.J, ]37' 
391 : distinguished. 
· 
' 
276 
SUPJ\'l!MB COUJ\T J\l!PO!t.TS 
(1967] I S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 521° of 
A 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 12, 
1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 8 of 1957. 
C. B. Agarwala, T. R. Ramachandran and 0. C. Mathur, for 
the appellant. 
S 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for 
the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. Jn this appeal, the question is whether a deed 
of release was vitiated by misrepresentation, and if, not, whether 
it operated as a conveyance of the suit properties in favour of the 
respondents. 
By a will dated August 9, 1931, their grandfather 
Ponnuswami bequeathed the immovable properties to his paternal 
uncle's daughter, Kannammal. In January, 1952, the respon-
dents instituted O.S. No. 24 of 1953 against several pel'Sons includ-
ing Kannammal challenging inter alia the validity of the bequest 
made by Ponnuswami. On February I, 1952, Kannammal diei 
leaving as her heir the appellant who was her husband's brother's 
son. On February 25, 1952, the appellant executed a deed, Ex. 
B-1, in favour of the respondents releasing the s

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