LexN. THAJUDEEN versus TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 952 : 2024 INSC 817 N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013) 24 October 2024 [Pankaj Mithal* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted and is a valid document which continue to exist despite its revocation as the donor had not reserved the right to revoke the same. Headnotes† Gift – Gift deed – Revocation – When attracted – Execution of gift deed by the appellant in favour of the respondent, gifting the property for the purpose of manufacturing and the same was accepted by the respondent – However, revoked after five years – Four years later, the respondent filed suit for declaration of title over the property and recovery of possession on basis of the gift deed – Suit dismissed by the trial court holding that the gift deed was not valid as it was never accepted and acted upon – However, the first appellate court and the High Court held in favour of the respondent holding that the gift deed was acted upon and in absence of any clause authorizing revocation, it could not have been revoked as alleged vide the revocation deed – Correctness: Held: Gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted by the respondent, as such the said gift deed cannot be held to be invalid for want of acceptance – On the basis of the gift deed, the respondent acquired absolute right and title over the suit property – None of the exceptions permitting revocation of the gift deed as stated in s.126 of the 1882 Act attracted, thus, the gift deed, which was validly made, could not have been revoked in any manner – Revocation deed is void ab initio and of no consequence – Non-utilisation of the suit property for manufacturing for the purpose set out in the gift deed, and keeping the same * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 953 N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board as vacant may be a disobedience of the object of the gift but that by itself would not attract the power to revoke the gift deed – No stipulation in the gift deed that if the suit property is not so utilised, the gift would stand revoked or would be revoked at the discretion of the donor – As regards, the suit filed by the respondent being hit by limitation, once it is held that the gift deed was validly executed resulting in the absolute transfer of title in favour of the respondent, the same is not liable to be revoked, and as such the revocation deed is meaningless especially for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation for instituting the suit – Suit is not simply for the declaration of title rather it is for a further relief for recovery of possession – When in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is claimed, the relief of declaration would only be an ancillary one and for the purposes of limitation, it would be governed by the relief that has been additionally claimed – Though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years as per Art.58 but for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Art.65 – Thus, the suit for the relief of possession was not actually barred and the court of first instance could not have dismissed the entire suit as barred by time – No error or illegality on part of the first appellate court and the High Court in decreeing the suit of the respondent – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Arts.58, 65. [Paras 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26] Case Law Cited C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa and Ors. [1962] 1 SCR 67 : AIR 1961 SC 808 – referred to. List of Acts Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Gift deed; Revocation; Revocation of gift deed; Revocation deed; Power to revoke gift deed; Execution of gift deed; Suit for declaration of title; Suit for recovery of possession; Acceptance; Disobedience of the object of the gift; Limitation; Transfer of title; Calculation of period of limitation. 954 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2011 of the High Court of Madras in SA No. 1905 of 1997 Appearances for Parties Ms. T.Archana, K. K. Mani, Rajeev Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. Vipin Kumar Jai, Mrs. Gurinder Jai, Ms.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.