Chaudhary Ramesar vs. Smt. Prabhawati Phool Chand AIR 2012 Allahabad 173 (High Court)
The plaintiff was the brother of one Mohan. Mohan neither had a son nor a daughter and that during his lifetime his wife Smt. Tirthi had died. It was alleged that the defendant got a gift-deed executed through an imposter of Mohan, which was liable to be cancelled on the grounds: that Mohan did not at all execute the gift-deed; that the statement in the gift-deed that the defendant was daughter of Mohan was incorrect; that the gift-deed was executed without a mental act of the donor; that there was no valid acceptance of the gift; that the defendant did not enter into possession of the property.
The defendant contested the suit by denying the allegations and claiming that she was the only daughter of Mohan and that Mohan had no son or other issue. It was claimed that the gift was voluntarily executed by Mohan, which was duly attested by the witnesses and registered in accordance with the law of registration; and that the gift was duly accepted by her and that her name was duly recorded in the revenue records pursuant to the gift-deed. It was also claimed that the suit was barred by limitation as also by principles of estoppel and acquiescence.
The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the gift-deed was validly executed, the execution of which was proved by its attesting witness – that the defendant was the daughter of Mohan, that the death certificate produced by the plaintiff to the effect that Mohan died on 25.5.1991, that is prior to the execution of the gift-deed, was not reliable, whereas from the evidence led by the defendant it was clear that Mohan had died on 10.8.1991; and that the name of the defendant was also mutated in the revenue records. With the aforesaid findings the suit was dismissed. The finding recorded by the Courts below that Dr. K. Shivaram Ajay R. Singh Advocates Allied laws Prabhawati (defendant) was the daughter of Mohan had not been subjected to challenge.
The Hon’ble Court observed that from a perusal of the photocopy version of the gift-deed, it appeared that bhumidhari land was gifted whereas Rs. 40,000/- has been mentioned as the valuation of the property donated and not as consideration. The valuation has been mentioned, obviously, for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Accordingly, the first contention was not acceptable. Thus, a composite reading of the deed clearly disclosed that it was a gift of immovable property and not a sale.
On the question of valid acceptance of the gift, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant was a minor on the date of the execution of the gift-deed, therefore, in absence of any proof of valid acceptance by a guardian or next friend on her behalf, the gift would not be complete.
The Court observed that the age of Smt. Prabhawati has been disclosed as 28 years, which translates to 21 years on the date of execution of the gift-deed. In the plaint, however, it has been mentioned that from the impugned deed, acceptance is not established. In the gift-deed, there is a clear recital that the donor was transferring his possession over his bhumidhari land and that the gift has been accepted by the donee i.e. Prabhawati and that she was entitled to get her name mutated in the revenue records. This recital in the gift-deed raises a presumption about the acceptance of the gift by the donee. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 1 has taken note of the statement of Prabhawati, wherein she had stated that on the same day she entered into possession of the land and continues to remain in possession. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no acceptance of the gift. Even otherwise, assuming that actual physical possession remained with the father, then also, the gift could not have been invalidated considering the relationship of father and daughter. In the case of Kamakshi Ammal vs. Rajalaksmi and others, AIR 1995 Mad 415 (para 21) it was held that where a father made a gift to his daughter and on its acceptance by her, she allowed her father to enjoy the income from the properties settled in view of the relationship of father and daughter between the donor and donee, it could not be said that there was no acceptance of gift by the donee, even assuming that the donor continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property gifted.
Further, even if it is assumed that the defendant was minor on the date of execution of the giftdeed, the gift would not be invalidated for lack of acceptance by another guardian or next friend, as acceptance can be implied by the conduct of the donee.
The appeal was dismissed.
