Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2) Whether the Courts below are justified in not holding that the gift deed is void ab initio since the gift is in respect of an open land, though there existed a two storied building as on the date of the deed?
3) Whether the Court below is right in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.31/2006 without production of revocation deed?
4) Whether gift deed can be revoked unilaterally in the facts and circumstances of case?"

24. The suit in O.S.No.49/2003 though is a suit for partition and separate possession, it is also for the relief of declaration to declare that the Gift Deed dated 9.9.1999 was null and void. If the said Gift Deed is declared as null and void, only then the plaintiff in the said suit would be entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property which is the subject matter of the alleged Gift Deed dated 9.9.1999 also. According to the plaintiff in the said suit, the said Gift Deed was never intended to act upon and the same has been subsequently revoked by the donor under a registered Revocation Deed dated 31.3.2004. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.31/2006 are the beneficiaries under the said Gift Deed dated 9.9.1999. They are the wife and children of deceased donee Veeresh Hiremath, in whose favour, late Jambulingayya Hiremath has executed the said Gift Deed giving him the suit schedule property with Municipal No.8-11-181/800, showing it to be a plot under the said Gift Deed. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.31/2006 have sought for the relief of declaration to declare that the alleged registered Revocation Deed dated 31.3.2004 was null and void. Both, the trial Court, as well as the first Appellate Court have confirmed the Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.31/2006. Thus, the remaining three substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are concentrating upon the validity and enforceability of the said Gift Deed dated 9.9.1999 and also the validity of the registered Revocation Deed dated 31.3.2004.

31. Though the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the gift becomes void because of non-mentioning of the alleged structure upon it, however, he did not substantiate his argument by citing any provision of law or by producing any material in his support. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 drawing the attention of this Court to Section 3(26) of General Clauses Act, 1897 and Sections 3 and 8 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `T.P.Act'), submitted that transfer of an immovable property implies and includes in it the transfer of the structure put up thereupon.

The above provisions of law, as well judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Chand (supra), makes it very clear that where the transferor intends to transfer an immovable property to the transferee, unless specifically the right or liberty is reserved by the transferor, all those things which are attached to the earth in the said transferred immovable property passes to the transferee.

34. In the instant case, a careful study of the Gift Deed at Ex.D-1/Ex.P-4 shows that, no where the donor Sri Jambulingayya had either mentioned about the existence of any building structure on the property gifted to his son Veeresh or had reserved his right over the alleged structure on the transferred plot, which structure, according to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.49/2003, was said to be in existence. As such, even after assuming that there was some structure as on the date when the gift was made by the donor in favour of the donee of the suit schedule `A' property, still, the transfer includes along with the plot, the structure built thereupon also. Therefore, the argument of the appellants that the gift is void, ab initio since the gift is in respect of an open land though there existed a two-storied building as on the date of Deed, is not acceptable.