R. KUPPAYEE AND ANR. versus RAJA GOUNDER

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 10-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

R. KUPPAYEE AND ANR. 
v. 
RAJA GOUNDER 
DECEMBER l 0, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.J 
Hindu Law-Gift of ancestral property by the father in favour of his 
daughters through registered settlement deed-Father later claiming that 
A 
B 
the settlement deed got executed by misrepresentation and fraud-Plea by 
father that his signature was obtained as a witness to a sale deed and not C 
for execution of settlement deed and that he has no capacity to gift to his 
daughters the Joint family property-Suit by daughters for permanent 
injunction for restraining 
the father from interfering with peaceful 
possession-Trial Court dismissed the suit-Confirmed by First Appellate 
Court and High Court Held, on facts and evidence, the gift was not vitiated D 
by fraud and misrepresentation-Further, father has capacity to gift 
ancestral property to daughters to a reasonable extent. 
The respondent, by a registered settlement deed, settled the suit 
property to his appellant-daughters out of natural love and affection 
for them. After 5 years, the respondent asked the appellants to vacate E 
the property and tried to trespass into the property. The appellants 
filed a suit for permanent injunction before trial court for restraining 
the respondent and his associates from interfering with the appellant's 
peaceful possessi~n and enjoyment of the suit property. The respond-
ent resisted the suit contending that the suit property was an ancestral F 
property; that settlement deed was not executed in favour of the 
respondents; that the appellants misrepresented the respondent taking 
advantage of his addiction to liquor for signing the sale deed of the 
property purchased by the appellants as an attesting witness and 
instead got the settlement deed signed. The trial court dismissed the 
suit of the appellants holding that the settlement deed was got executed G 
by misrepresentation and that the respondent had no power to make 
a gift of a part of his ancestral properties in favour of his daughters. 
This was confirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. 
In appeal, the appellants contended that the finding of fact by the H 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A lower courts regarding execution of settlement deed is vitiated due to 
misreading of the statement of one of the attesting witnesses: that the 
respondent, being the karta of the Joint Hindu family had the authority 
to make a gift of ancestral immoveable property to a reasonable extent 
to his daughters. 
B 
c 
The respundent contended that he had no authority to gift the 
only ancestral property possessed by the family in favour of his 
daughters. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Finding recorded by the trial court clearly shows that 
the court misread and misconstrued the testimony of the attesting 
witness PW 2. In his deposition, PW 2 has clearly stated that he ·was 
invited by the respondent to be a witness. He has nowhere .stated that 
D the respondent was taken for affixing signatures as witness. If respond~ 
ent was to be a witness, then there was no need to ask PW2 and other 
witness to accompany the respondent or for them to sign the document. 
PW 2 also deposed that the respondent affixed his signatures on the 
settlement deed (Ex Al) after reading the same, that he has signed 
Exhibit Al as a witness and that he knew the respondent. Suggestion 
E put to him that signatures of the respondent on Exhibit Al wer~ 
obtained by threat was denied. The trial court did not refer to this par~ 
of testimony of PW 2 at all. In the cross-examination, PW 2 has stated 
. 
"' 
' 
. 
. ... ' 
that the fact that the respondent had invited him for signing as a witness 
has been read to him as if PW 2 had stated t~at th~ respondent was 
F taken for affixing signature~ as a witness to some_ documents on the date 
when the deed of settlement Exhibi_t Al was executed.,.This i§ a c~ear 
misreading of the testimony of PW 2. The trial court also failed to ~ote 
that the evidence of respondent lacked total credibility e~pecially in th<; 
light of his conduct i_n denying his signature on the settl_ement deed, 
G vakalatnama as well as on the summons ser.ved on him. Projection made 
~ 
' . 
. 
.. 
. . 
by the respondent in his testim~ny that the appellants taking advantage 
of the fact that he was a drunkard got the settlement deed signed 
fraudulently cannot be accepted. Respondent took no steps to g~t the 
settlemen_t deed cancell~d though,

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