9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was filed on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 05.03.1983 allegedly executed by the defendant-appellant which was said to have been accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. 3. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide Judgment and order dated 23.08.1994 primarily on the ground that the alleged gift deed was not valid as it was never accepted and acted upon. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the plaintiff respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was allowed vide Judgment and order dated 05.08.1997. The appellate Court reversed the judgment and order of the court of first instance and decreed the suit. The second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed on 11.01.2011 by the High Court. In de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf, the plaintiff-respondent accepts the suit property for the use as aforesaid. 7. A simple and complete reading of the aforesaid gift deed would reveal that the gift is absolute with no right reserved for its revocation in any contingency. The only purpose stipulated therein is that the property gifted shall be used for manufacturing Khadi Lungi and Khadi Yarn etc. 8. It is worth noting that the gift deed itself states that from the date of the gift deed the suit property is accepted by the plaintiff-respondent for the purpose of manufacturing Khadi Lungi and Khadi Yarn etc., which duly proves that the gift was accepted. It was also acted upon as pursuant thereof the plaintiff-respondent had applied for mutation to the revenue authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no such right is reserved under the gift deed. In this connection, a reference may be made to the provisions of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' which provides that a gift cannot be revoked except for certain contingencies enumerated therein. 13. It is important to reproduce Section 126 of the Act, which reads as follows: "126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.- The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be. A gift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the happening of any specified event. Therefore, the first exception permitting revocation of the gift deed is not attracted in the case at hand. Secondly, a gift deed would be void wholly or in part, if the parties agree that it shall be revocable wholly or in part at the mere will of the donor. In the present case, there is no agreement between the parties for the revocation of the gift deed wholly or in part or at the mere will of the donor. Therefore, the aforesaid condition permitting revocation or holding such a gift deed to be void does not apply. Thirdly, a gift is liable to be revoked in a case where it is in the nature of a contract which could be rescinded. The gift under consideration is not in the form of a contract and the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the gift deed, i.e., 17.08.1987 (Exhibit B-2), the suit is barred by limitation. 20. Once it is held that the gift deed was validly executed resulting in the absolute transfer of title in favour of the plaintiff-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. 21. The limitation for a suit for declaration is provided under Part III of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. It is governed by Articles 56-58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Under all the aforesaid three Articles, the limitation for a suit for declaration is three years. The limitation provided under Articles 56 and 57 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist. 24. Even otherwise, though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 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 Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, suit for the relief of possession was not actually barred and as such the court of first instance could not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
