Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. Learned Trial Court relied upon the decision in Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) by L.R V. Thamma Rattamma and Others (supra) for the settled principle that gift of undivided share in the joint family property is void whereas learned Appellate Court completely mis-applied the facts of that case to the present case and also misinterpreted that concept of Patna High Court SA No.216 of 2013 dt.23-06-2025 'renunciation' to reach the erroneous conclusion with consent in the present case was impliedly given after the present suit was filed which validates the gift without their being pleading with respect thereto. In the aforesaid case of the Hon'ble Apex Court, an issueless coparcener gifted his undivided share to his brother in a family which consisted only of the donor, his brother (donee) and donee's sons and daughters. As such the gift enured to the benefit of all and nobody's share got depleted or prejudiced. It was found that the so-called gift was intact as renunciation and not a gift as it benefited all members of the family equally and as a single body compromising joint family. It is further submitted that renunciation occurs when a person relinquishes his share in a manner as if it was never his share and accordingly, said share becomes part of the common pool and each co-sharer is equally benefited by it. However, learned Appellate Court below failed to consider that in the present case due to the gift, plaintiff has been deprived of her lawful share, as a result whereof, one co-sharer has been prejudiced and others benefited and therefore it cannot be a renunciation. The full brother of the donor namely, Net Narayan Prasad Singh was alive and he was admittedly a coparcener but nowhere it is pleaded in the entire written statement that he consented to the gift. Further, the full sister Hiramani Devi being Patna High Court SA No.216 of 2013 dt.23-06-2025 the interevenor-defendant was also a co-sharer but nowhere her consent for the gift was either pleaded or proved.

28. Mr. S.N.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents answered the question with regard to transaction (deed of gift) without the consent of other members of coparcenary that the deed of gift was executed by Ram Naresh Prasad Singh in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 which is under challenge in the present appeal cannot be challenged by anyone other than the coparceners. Obviously, no coparceners, who were in family at the date of gift i.e. 25.09.1986, has challenged the present gift. The plaintiff was not a coparcener at the date of gift or on the date of filing of the suit. Reliance has been placed in the case of Jagdish Tiwary and others vs. Lalita Kuer and others reported in 2011(1) BBCJ 633. The question whether the consent of coparcener was not obtained before the execution of gift deed dated 25.09.1986 has not been specifically pleaded anywhere in the plaint and only raised objection at the time of argument. The learned counsel for the appellants has tried to show that the plea Patna High Court SA No.216 of 2013 dt.23-06-2025 was taken and the deed of gift under challenge was void as such same was obtained by fraud and impersonation.