RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. versus RAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2329 · Decided: 14-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 2329 : 2024 INSC 868
Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. 
v.  
Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. LRs.
(Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2012)
14 November 2024
[C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the deed executed, which gave rise to the present 
property dispute, was a gift deed or a deed of settlement; Whether 
the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings 
of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil 
Procedure Code, 1908.
Headnotes†
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Stamp Act, 
1899 – Section 2(24) Determination of whether an instrument 
is Gift Deed or Deed of Settlement – Held, the instrument in 
the case is Deed of Settlement – The consideration need not 
always be in monetary terms and can be in other forms as well – 
Non-monetary consideration accepted for Deed of Settlement:
Held: The High Court, while considering Second Appeal of the 
Respondents, reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as 
well as the First Appellate Court that the deed executed in relation 
to the property in favour of one Govindammal was settlement 
deed – The High Court found that the deed in question was a 
gift deed and not one of settlement as the element of ‘adequate 
consideration’ was missing and instead, the transfer was effected 
out of love and affection for Govindammal – Held, the transfer 
of property in favour of Govindammal was in recognition of the 
fact that she had been taking care of the transferors and would 
continue to do so while also using the same to carry out charitable 
work – The High Court has erred in taking a constricted view of 
‘consideration’, especially taking note of the fact that the settlement 
was between the members of a family – As such, Govindammal 
(now her heirs) is indeed entitled to 2/3rd share in the property, in 
terms of the settlement deed. [Paras 14, 15.4, 15.5, 16.4]
*Author
2330
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Power to interfere 
in Second Appeal limited:
Held: The jurisdiction to interfere in findings where the Courts 
below have been ad idem, is limited and such limitation is well 
expounded – Referring to Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (2007) 1 SCC 546 
there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground 
of an erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexcusable the 
error may seem to be, and they added a note of warning that no 
court in India has power to add to, or enlarge, the grounds specified 
in Section 100 – Further reference made to V. Ramachandra 
Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 155 & Nazir 
Mohammed v. J. Kamala (2020) 19 SCC 57 on the limitations of 
the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of 
the CPC. [Paras 16, 16.1]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Meaning of 
substantial question of law Reiterated:
Held: Referring to Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai 
Pandurang Petkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210, Santosh 
Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, it was held 
that a substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for the 
maintainability of a second appeal, shall be one which is not 
previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent – The 
said substantial question of law shall not have material bearing 
on the decision of case – Further, a new point raised for the first 
time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case 
unless it goes to the root of the matter – Therefore, it will depend 
on facts of each case. [Paras 16.3]
Case Law Cited
CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 15 SCR 
899 : (2023) 4 SCC 561; Chidambara Iyer & Ors. v. P.S. Renga 
Iyer [1966] 1 SCR 168 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 293; Gurdev 
Kaur v. Kaki [2007] Supp. 1 SCR 27 : (2007) 1 SCC 546; V. 
Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, 1962 SCC OnLine 
SC 155; Nazir Mohammed v. J. Kamala [2020] 7 SCR 763 : 
(2020) 19 SCC 57; Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai 
Pandurang Petkar [2023] 12 SCR 488 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 
1210; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 1 SCR 948 : 
(2001) 3 SCC 179 – referred to.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
2331
Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. v.  
Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. LRs.
List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Contract Act, 1872; Stamp Act, 1899.
List of Keywords
Gift Deed; Settlement Deed; Consideration.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3034  
of 2012

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