Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.85 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Repalle, for the purpose of convenience.

8. As already referred to supra the suit was decreed and the unsuccessful defendant met the same fate even in the appeal A.S.No.77 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant is his junior maternal aunt and daughter of one Kalapala Achayya and the said Achayya had got four daughters and had no sons and the plaintiff is son of the third daughter of the said Achayya. The said Achayya died on 09.8.1954 and before his death on 02.6.1952 he executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant for the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff was brought up for two years by the defendant, as the defendant had no issues. Under these circumstances the plaintiff was chosen to perform the obsequies and funeral ceremonies of the deceased Achayya and as such out of love and affection the defendant gifted half of her property received from her father under a registered gift deed to the plaintiff and a gift deed was executed by the defendant on 09.8.1954. As per the terms and conditions of the gift deed, the plaintiff got possession of the schedule property with absolute rights. It is further stated that at the time of the said gift deed, the plaintiff was minor and that the defendant was having an obligation to maintain her mother Mahalakshmamma after the death of her father, the elders viz., Nerusu Bhavannarayana, Kalapala Govindu, Appaiah, Kasturi Venkateswarlu, Gottumukkala Seetharamaswamy had made an arrangement with the defendant as to enjoy the usufruct of the schedule property by keeping possession and pay land revenue on behalf of the plaintiff till the death of her mother and after the death of her mother, she should deliver possession of the same. Later Mahalakshmamma died in October 1982 and the plaintiff performed her obsequies and other ceremonies. As per the arrangement, the plaintiff became entitled to recover the possession of the schedule property and accordingly the plaintiff demanded the defendant to deliver possession of the schedule property to him in the presence of the elders Gottumukkala Kotaiah, Sajja Bapanaiah and Pullivarthi Subbarao. The defendant admitted about the previous family arrangement and requested time till the receipt of the crop in the year 1983-84 and for delivery of the possession so as to adjust the expenses incurred. Accordingly after receipt of the crops in the year 1983-84 from the schedule property by the defendant, the plaintiff again asked the defendant in the presence of elders in the second week of February 1984 for delivery of possession. The defendant, in spite of giving possession, refused to deliver the possession of the schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 16.2.1984 to the defendant for which the defendant did not give any reply and had not delivered possession. Hence, the suit.

It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the property, together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property. The question is whether the gift in question had become complete under Section 123 of the TP Act? It is seen from the recitals of the gift deed that Motilal Gopalji gifted the property to the respondent. In other words, it was a conditional gift. There is no recital of acceptance nor is there any evidence in proof of acceptance. Similarly, he had specifically stated that the property would remain in his possession till he was alive. Thereafter, the gifted property would become his property and he was entitled to collect mesne profits in respect of the existing rooms throughout his life. The gift deed conferred only limited right upon the respondent-donee. The gift was to become operative after the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. It would thus be seen that the donor had executed a conditional gift deed and retained the possession and enjoyment of the property during his lifetime. The recitals in the cancellation deed are consistent with the recitals in the gift deed. He had expressly stated that the respondent had cheated him and he had not fulfilled the conditions subject to which there was an oral understanding between them. Consequently, he mentioned that the conditional gift given to him was cancelled. He also mentioned that the possession and enjoyment remained with him during his lifetime. He stated, "I have to execute immediately this deed of cancelling the conditional gift deed between us. Therefore I hereby cancel the conditional gift deed dated 15.5.1965 of Rs. 9,000/- in words rupees nine thousand presented at Serial No. 2153 on 15.5.1965 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Baroda for registration. Therefore, the said conditional gift deed dated 15.5.1965 is hereby cancelled and becomes meaningless. The property under the conditional gift has not been and is not to be transferred in our name". Thus he expressly made it clear that he did not hand over the possession to the respondent nor did the gift become complete during the lifetime of the donor. Thus the gift had become ineffective and inoperative. It was duly cancelled. The question then is whether the appellant would get the right to the property? It is not in dispute that after the cancellation deed dated 9.6.1965 came to be executed, duly putting an end to the conditional gift deed dated 15.5.1965, he executed his last will on 17.5.1965 and died two days thereafter.