Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Krishnamurthi v. Vinkata Ramanaiah (1958) 2 An.W.R. 343 : A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 13. the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dealing with a similar question as to what constitutes the acceptance of a gift, has observed that the acceptance of a gift deed is not something which has necessarily to take place only after the transfer is completed or effected, and that if a near relation seeks a gift and a gift deed is drawn because of that request, it would be open to the Court to hold on the basis of that antecedent request at any rate in the light of the surrounding circumstances that the intended transfer of property was accepted. It was further observed that the law does not require that there should be proof that there was acceptance only after the deed was executed and that there can merely be cases where it would be possible to draw an inference as to the acceptance of a gift even from acts anterior to the execution of a deed of gift.

25. The Kerala High Court, in Kolandivel Ammal v. Changaran and Ors. . hold that where the recitals in a deed of gift clearly showed that the property was then outstanding with tenants and what remained with the donor was only the right to collect rent from them, and that right to collect rent was transferred to and accepted by the donee under the terms of the gift, there was acceptance of the gift by the donee.

26. In another decision in Narayani Bhanumathi v. Lalitha Bai 1973 K.L.I. 961. the Kerala High Court while examining the evidence required for proof of acceptance of a gift as contemplated under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, has held thus:

The evidence bearing on the question of acceptance of the gift deed will have to be appreciated in the background of the circumstance relating to the execution of such a deed. There may be cases where slightest evidence of such acceptance would be sufficient. There may be still cases where the circumstances themselves eloquently speak to such acceptance. Normally, when a person gifts properties to another and it is not an onerous gift, one may expect the other to accept such a gift when once it comes to his knowledge since normally any person would be only too willing to promote his own interests. May be in particular cases there may be peculiar circumstances which may show that the donee would not have accepted the gift. But they are rather the exceptions than the rule. It is only normal to assume that the donee would have accepted the gift deed. One would have to look into the circumstances of the case in order to see whether acceptance could be read. Mere silence may sometimes be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift. Essentially, this is a question of fact to be considered on the background of circumstances of each case.
Thus, on a consideration of the dicta laid down by the various Courts in the cases referred to above and on our own interpretation of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, we are of opinion that the acceptance of the gift may be done in several ways. As we have already stated, Section 122 does not lay down any procedure or prescribe any mode for the acceptance of a gift. The acceptance may take the form of the receiving of the original deed of settlement for the donee, the mutation of names in the public registers, the payment of taxes in the name of the donee, the receipt of rent from the tenants in possession of the property forming the subject-matter of the gift, the proclamation of the settlement transaction by the donor and an acceptance by the donee of the correctness of the said statement in token of the acceptance of the transaction, etc. The several instances referred to above by us are only enumerative and not exhaustive in character and content. In this perspective if the facts of the present case are scrutinised, we feel that there is sufficient material for arriving at the conclusion that the gift had been accepted. The plaintiff as G.W.1 has deposed before the Subordinate Judge in the enquiry in G.R.O.P. No. 275 of 1966 as follows: