NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKER versus PRANJIVANDAS MANGANLAL THAKKER AND ORS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 10-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKER 
v. 
·:PRANJIVANDAS MANGANLAL THAKKER AND ORS ... 
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 
.. ' 
B 
[K. ~AMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
'_Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882 : 
· S.122, 123-Gift-Vift deed executed in favour of respondent-Can-
e celled by a subsequent deed-Thereafter Will executed in favour of appellant 
and his brothe~onditional gift-To become operative 011 donor's 
--
death2-Before his death he executed the Will, after cancelling the gift 
deed-Held, the gift deed had become ineffective and inoperative-17ie can-
cellation deed put an end to the gift deed. 
D 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3550 of 
1979. 
', 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.79 of the Gujarat High 
Court in P.A. No. 421 of 1974. 
E 
R.P. Bhatt, K.V. Sreekumar, Ms. Reema Bhandari, Ms. Alka Aggar-
wal and M.N. Shroff for the Appellant. 
S.K. Dholakia and H.A. Raichura for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Gujarat High Court made in FA No. 421/74 on September 
13, 1979. The admitted facts are that one Motilal Gopalji was the owner 
of the properties bearing Revenue Survey No. 172/8 situated in Pratap-
nagar area of the city of Baroda. The property consists of 15 rooms of the 
G chaw! and an open land surrounding the same. The appellant is the sister 
of the First respondent. Motilal Gopalji had executed gift deed, Ex.111 
dated May 15, 1965 in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, he had 
executed another deed, Ex.198 dated June 9, 1965, cancelling the said gift. 
He executed a Will in favour of the appellant and another brother of the 
H appellant on May 17, 1966. Motilal Gopalji died two days thereafter, i.e., 
780 
N.M. THAKKER v. P.M. THAKKAR 
781 
May 19, 1966. Consequently, the resfiondent laid a suit in the Court of the A 
Civil Judge, Senior Division in Baroda for declaration of his title to the 
properties and injunction r~straining the appellant and her brother from 
collecting the rents. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, it was 
confirmed. Thus 'this appeal by special leave. 
Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
contended that a reading of the recitals of·the gift deed and the cancella-
tion deed do clearly indicate the intention of the donor and the donee, 
namely, the gift was not complete. It was a conditional one. He reserved 
life interest in the property and had not handed over the possession of the 
property; nor had the donee accepted the gift, thereby, the gift was 
incomplete. The gift which was duly cancelled became inoperative during 
the life time of the donor. The donor had cancelled it within one month of 
the gift. Subsequently, he had executed a Will in favour of the appellant 
and her brother. Thereby, the courts below were wrong in construing that 
B 
c 
the gift became operative and by operation of gift deed dated May 15, 1965 D 
the donor Motilal Gopalji was devoid of power to cancel the gift deed. It 
is contended by Shri Dholakia, learned s~nior counsel for rhe respondent, 
that the view taken by the High Co\Irt is correct in law. It is stated that 
Motilal Gopalji had delivered symboiic possession to the respondent. What 
he preserved was cinly right to collect rent for his maintenance and there-
after he had no power to cancel it. The recitals in the cancellation deed 
E 
are not material. Only the recitals in the gift deed have to be considered. 
On their own face value they do indicate that Motilal Gopalji had divested 
·-> 
himself totally of the right, title and interest in the property, the subject 
matter of the gift over. Consequently, he had no power to cancel the gift 
and the Will executed by Motilal Gopalji was inoperative. We find no force F 
in the contention for the respondent. 
It is now well settled legal position that a document has to be read 
harmoniously as a whole giving effect to all the clauses contained in the 
document which manifest the intep.tion of the persons who execute the 
document. The material part of the gift deed reads as under: 
G 
"The said immovable property as described aBove with the ground 
floor and with the ways to pass and with the water disposal and 
with all other concerned rights, titles is gifted to you and the 
possession whereof is handed over to you under the following H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
conditions to b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.