Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.11 Even otherwise what exactly was the oral understanding or arrangement or what was the condition, which made the gift deed conditional has not been explained by defendant no. 1. The only alleged condition, as is claimed by defendant no. 1 and 2, is that plaintiff was to look after his old and ailing parents and as he failed to do so the said gift deed was cancelled. As far as taking care of defendant no. 1 is concerned there is no denial, in the written statement, of the plaintiff's categoric averments that he had had close relation with defendant no. 1 and his mother i.e. wife of defendant no. 1 till the time of her death. There is also no denial that he has been sending medical equipments and bearing other expenses towards the treatment of his mother and sister in law i.e. wife of defendant no. 2. In the absence of any specific denial I find no reasons to disbelieve the averments of the plaint. Moreover as already discussed above the registered gift deed does not speak of any such condition. Furthermore, as the execution of the gift deed stands admitted, Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 comes into picture and it is not open for the defendants to plead any oral arrangement or understanding or condition which is not part of, incorporated in the registered gift deed. At this stage it will be worthwhile to go through CS No.58556/16 Arun Jain V. Padam Chand Jain 18/ 37 the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohinder Singh Verma Vs. J.P.S. Verma 2014 SCC Online Delhi 2565 which are reproduced hereunder:

7.25 Though Ld. Counsel for the defendants also relied upon S. Satinder Singh and ors Vs. Raminder Sarup Singh and anr 2002 IIIAD Delhi 531 and M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals ltd. Vs M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & anr JT 2010 (4) SC 574 to argue that it is not a fit case to attract the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC however I find no merits in the reliance placed upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants on the said case laws. It is only upon considering the entire pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record that I have come to the conclusion that it is a fit case which does not merit any trial and exercising the judicial discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC would meet the ends of justice. Once execution of registered gift deed is admitted I find no impediment in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Evasive denials are there in the written statements. Averments in the written statements are otherwise inconsistent with the pleadings, plaint of CS No. 160/13. Oral evidence against the registered gift deed cannot be admitted. The suit property was duly transferred, came to be CS No.58556/16 Arun Jain V. Padam Chand Jain 34/ 37 owned by the plaintiff upon execution of the registered gift deed and he is the absolute owner of the same.

7.26 There are no additional averments in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as was claimed by Ld. Counsel for the defendants during the course of arguments. At best the averments in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC are merely explaining the factual matrix already set out in the plaint.

7.27 Merely because the original documents are with defendant no. 1 that does not effect the plaintiff's right in the suit property which devolved upon him on account of execution and registration of the gift deed. As the plaintiff was/is residing abroad i.e. in USA, the gift deed had already been registered which made him the absolute owner of the suit property and he had also executed the Power of attorney in his father's favour to manage and control the property and his father i.e. defendant no. 1 was residing in the suit property it was completely natural for the property documents to have been kept with defendant no. 1 as they could be required from time to time for various purposes including payment of tax, letting out of the property, getting electricity connection etc. But merely because the documents remained with defendant no. 1 it does not effect the plaintiff's right under the registered gift deed.

CS No.58556/16                 Arun Jain V. Padam Chand Jain               35/ 37
 7.28             Merely because defendant no. 2 is/was residing in the suit

property at the time of execution of gift deed that also does not effect the plaintiff's right under the registered gift deed. A careful scrutiny of defendant no. 2's written statement would reveal that he has not claimed any independent right to, over the suit property and the only right which has been claimed is that he is residing in the same with his father as it is belongs to his father. Plaintiff being the absolute owner can seek possession of the suit property from the defendants for which he has already taken steps in the form of CS No. 67/17. Furthermore the electricity connection in the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff and the suit property stands mutated in his name which obviously was done on the basis of registered gift deed.