N.P. SASEENDRAN versus N.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 24-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 957 : 2025 INSC 388
N.P. Saseendran 
v. 
N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4312 of 2025)
24 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The question to be decided herein is twin fold, whether the document 
of the year 1985 is a gift or Settlement or Will and whether the 
requirements under law or conditions in the deed have been 
satisfied to vest a legal right.
Headnotes†
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.122 - 123, 126, 127, 
128 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Art. 33 – Kerala Stamp Act, 
1959 – Art.31 – Registration Act, 1909 – s.17 – Specific Relief 
Act, 1963 – s.2(b) – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Part VI – 
ss.2(h), 59, 61, 62, 63, 70, 89 – Respondent No.1 was the 
plaintiff (daughter) in O.S.No.27 of 1994 and the appellant was 
defendant No.2 (son) in the said suit – Respondent no.1 alleged 
that the suit schedule property was gifted by her father, who 
was defendant No.1 in the suit, vide registered deed dated 
26.06.1985 – Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the said suit for 
declaration of right, title and interest over the suit schedule 
property and also for a declaration that the cancellation deed 
and sale deed dated 19.10.1993 executed by the defendant 
No.1/father in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2 as null 
and void and for consequential injunction – The High Court 
upsetting the concurrent findings of the Courts below, granted 
a decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 declaring 
her right, title and interest over the suit schedule property by 
virtue of Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 26.06.1985 and declared 
that cancellation deed (Ext.A2) dated 19.10.1993 and sale deed 
(Ext.A3) dated 19.10.1993 both executed by defendant No.1 
would not bind the plaintiff as far as her right, title and interest 
over the suit schedule property is concerned – Correctness:
* Author
958
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Ext.A1 document dated 26.06.1985 was executed by 
defendant No.1/father in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff 
(daughter) – It was categorically stated therein that the suit 
schedule property belonged to defendant No.1/father and he 
was in possession and enjoyment of the same with full rights – 
The contents of the document would clearly reveal that there is 
consideration, conveyance, imposition of conditions and reservation 
of life interest by the executant, defendant No.1/father satisfying 
the requirements to classify the document as a “settlement” – The 
conditions to construct a house, to reside in the house, retention 
of life interest, the right of mortgage up to a sum of Rs.2,000/- and 
avail loan on that basis, cannot alter the gift, by which in unequivocal 
terms, the property stood vested in the plaintiff by earlier part – The 
condition, creating a life interest in favour of father and mother 
and the restriction regarding mortgage, would further imply that 
defendant No.1 had ceased to be the absolute owner – Defendant 
No.1 has also enabled the plaintiff to construct the house from then 
on and no outer time has been fixed for the construction of the 
house – Since the life interest was reserved in favour of defendant 
No.1 and his wife, defendant No.1 was only holding an ostensible 
possession and ownership as contemplated u/s.41, while the true 
owner being the plaintiff, after the clear conveyance by earlier 
clause – In the instant case, the clear and unambiguous language 
employed in the first part of Ext.A1 document dated 26.06.1985, 
reveals a clear disposition by defendant No.1/father to the plaintiff, 
by only retaining a life interest in the second part – Therefore, 
the instrument of 1985 is a gift by settlement – Now, as far as 
question that whether the gift was accepted and acted upon is 
concerned, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has registered the 
instrument – Such registration by the plaintiff is possible only if the 
document was handed over by defendant No.1 – The factum of 
acceptance can be derived from the conduct of the parties – The 
plaintiff, when the suit was filed, was in possession of the original 
title deed – Even assuming that the original deed was returned 
after registration, the fact that it was already acted upon, cannot 
be altered – Once a gift has been acted upon, the same cannot be 
unilaterally cancelled – The receipt of the original document by the 
plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance 
of the gift and the transaction satisfies t

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