Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. We have heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendants and given our careful consideration to the submissions made.

18. Based on the facts narrated above and the contention raised on both sides, the following questions would arise for consideration in this appeal:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff were in possession of the suit property as Donee?
(ii) Whether the Defendants are right in contending that Ex.P2-Gift Deed is only a draft document conferring no right upon the plaintiff?

39. In the light of the above discussion and the recitals contained in Exs.P2, P3 & P13 and having held that the entire transaction is a composite transaction, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff and to hold that the plaintiff's possession of the suit property after 06.01.1985 is that of the Donee and not as a lessee. Accordingly, the question Nos.(i) & (iii) are answered.

40. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendants contended that Ex.P.2 gift deed is only a draft document and the same cannot confer any right upon the plaintiff.

43. Equally the contention raised by the defendants that Ex.P.2 is only a draft document does not merit acceptance. Endeavour has been made in this regard by the learned Senior counsel for the defendants by relying upon the recitals in Ex.P.3 agreement. The penultimate clause in the agreement alone cannot be looked into in isolation. The correct method of reading a document is that the document has to be read as a whole to ascertain the true import. It cannot be compartmentalized, dissected, segregated and then read. It is not permissible to take a passage and read it out of context in isolation. The intention of the parties is to be gathered from the tenor and terms contained in the document as a whole.

45. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendants contended that Ex.P.2 is only a draft document and that the suit should have been filed for specific performance and the suit for declaration is not maintainable. It was further submitted that after getting exemption of stamp duty payable, the plaintiff never called upon the defendants to get the regular gift deed and no such demand was made and in any event, suit for specific performance only should have been filed. The above contention proceeds on the footing that Ex.P.2 is only a draft agreement. As discussed earlier, Exs.P.2 and P.3 are being integral part of each other and that Ex.P.2- gift deed is not a draft but contains recitals conveying the suit property by way of gift to the plaintiff and therefore, there was no need to file the suit for specific performance.