Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The instant first appeal under section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 16.3.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) - Second, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1510 of 2021 Archana Tyagi and others vs. Yaduraj Narain, whereby the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits,regarding the land gifted by their predecessor Raghukul Narain, has been dismissed.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff- appellants filed a suit in the trial court with the averments that their predecessor Raghukul Narain(donor), had executed a gift deed on 8.2.1968 regarding land situated in khasra No. 4352, having area of 1104 square yards, the details of which were mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, in favour of his nephew /defendant Yaduraj Narain(donee), on the defendant's request. The gift deed was registered on 24.2.1968 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Meerut. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the gift was conditional that the defendant would construct a cinema hall on the gifted land ,after taking due permission and if, the cinema hall could not be constructed, then the gifted land would revert back to the donor or his successors, whoever is alive. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant duly accepted the conditional gift.

Defendant's case

6. The defendant Yaduraj Narain filed his written statement in the trial court in which he accepted that the plaintiffs predecessor Raghukul Narain had conditionally gifted his land for constructing a cinema hall on it. He contended that in terms of the conditions of the gift deed, he had constructed Nandan cinema hall, after obtaining due permission and as such, complied with the conditional gift. He averred that since he had complied with the conditions of the gift, as such, the plaintiffs were not entitled to revoke the gift and take any other action against him. He specifically pleaded that after the execution of the gift deed dated 8.2.1968 and 30.10.1968, he had constructed Nandan cinema hall in the year 1974, after taking due permission and had operated the cinema hall on the gifted land, in accordance with the terms of the gift deed for a period of 53 years, and as such, the plaintiffs had no right to revoke the gift in the year 2021.

(x) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any other relief?

12. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs Amit Narain Singh Tyagi was examined as PW-1 and on behalf of the defendant, Devesh Narain was examined as DW-1.

13. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.2024 has dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The trial court decided issue number 1,2,4,5,6,10 in favour of the defendant and issue No.3,7,8,9 was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellants submitted that the donor gifted the land only for the purpose of constructing cinema hall on it, and the defendant after accepting the conditional gift, was bound to obey the conditions of the gift. Learned counsel submitted that the defendant after having accepted the conditional gift and constructing a cinema hall on it, was not entitled to demolish the cinema hall and in its place, construct a multiplex/shopping complex, which amounts to violation of the terms of the gift deed as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to revoke the gift and claim back the possession of the gifted land. Learned counsel further submitted that the donee was never permitted to change the usage of the land, which was supposed to be used for constructing only cinema hall, but by constructing a multiplex/shopping complex the donee -defendant has changed the usage of the land, which was not permitted in terms of the gift deed. The defendant has admitted that he is constructing a multiplex/shopping complex on the disputed land after obtaining permission and after getting sanctioned the building plan from the Meerut Development Authority, as such, the defendant cannot be permitted to change the usage of the gifted land. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has erred in overlooking the above facts and has recorded a perverse finding that the defendant has duly complied with the terms and conditions of the gift, after having operated for more than 53 years, cinema hall on the disputed land, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint. Learned counsel further submitted that since no duration for operating the cinema hall was mentioned in the gift deed as such, a cinema hall once constructed on the gifted land, was supposed to remain in existence forever and by demolishing the cinema hall in the year 2021, the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the gift, as such the plaintiff -appellants are entitled to get their suit decreed.

38. It is also apparent that the dominant purpose of the multiplex remains screening of movies, providing entertainment to the people. Only the subsidiary purpose is to provide eatables to the cinema goers, and affording some shopping opportunities to them. Generally, the people who desire to watch a movie, visit the multiplex. The primary purpose of majority of people visiting multiplex, is to watch a movie.

39. Since the donee-defendant has duly complied with the conditions of the gift by constructing a cinema hall on the gifted land and operating it for about 47 years, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the donee has violated the terms of the gift deeds and in view of this, the condition of the gift having been fulfilled, the successors of the donor are not entitled to revoke the gift and take back the possession of the gifted land, from the donee. Once the conditions of the gift have been complied with, the donor is divested of the ownership rights in the gifted land and as such, the donor cannot claim back the ownership and possession of the gifted land. After having fulfilled the conditions of the gift by constructing and operating the cinema hall for about 47 years, having become the owner of the gifted land, the donee-defendant cannot be prevented from demolishing the old cinema hall and constructing in its place, a modern multiplex having some shops providing eatables to the cinema goers and also affording some shopping opportunities to them.