Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"7. The plaintiff has produced registered gift deed dated 4.11.1968, Ex.P.1, executed by Ram Lal donor, in favour of Krishan Lal, donor, He has further brought on record site plan of the house, which is Ex.P.2, gift deed Ex.P.1 has been proved by Nathu Lal petition writer PW2 who scribed it and entered in his register at Sr.1751. Pushap Lal PW-3 was the attesting witness of the gift deed. A copy of the assessment Register Ex.P.5 further establishes, ownership and possession of shop in dispute. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that on the basis of oral and documentary . evidence, plaintiff has proved his ownership and possession in the suit property. The State has taken defence that Ram Lal father of the plaintiff wrongly registered the gift deed by means of a fraud with the State. So much so, he had full interest in the property as and when he got licence in auction, he was the full owner of the property on 1.4.1968. The law is clear on the point that father cannot make a gift of the coparcenary property, to his minor son. If he does so that gift is void The plaintiff in this case has not proved that it was not a coparcenary property, instead it was self-acquired. Thus, the gift to his minor son of 13 years is void. The ownership and possession of the property remained with the father till his death. DW4 has proved that Ram Lal had been paying property tax for the period from 1.4.1968 to 31.3.1970. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove, that he was owner in possession. The issue is decided accordingly.

12. The learned Government Pleader for the State came forward to argue that the suit is not maintainable in the present form as the recovery is to be effected as land revenue. Ram Lal, father of the plaintiff signed bid statements Exs.D.1, D.2 and D.3 dated 25.3.1968. He had been paying house tax of the property even after the execution of gift deed. The property was belonging to Ram Lal and gift was void as such the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.