Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In the light of the above discussions I have no hesitation to hold that not only Ex.A.1 was duly executed, attested and not tainted with any illegality, but it was also accepted and acted upon. I am also of the considered opinion based on the materials available on record that the plaintiff is in constructive possession of the suit properties through her tenants and her mother. On the date of the plaint the mother is shown to be residing in a property other than 'A' Schedule property. Even assuming for a moment without conceding that the plaintiff never took possession of the suit properties, as hotly contested by the first defendant and that he continued to be in possession of the same despite the gift in favour of the plaintiff, yet I am of the opinion that it is of absolutely no substance. Mrs. Hema Sampath learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would contend that even assuming for a moment without admitting that possession has not been given to the plaintiff by the donor namely, the second defendant, yet it does not affect the legality or the validity of the gift, if the donee establishes acceptances of the gift. In support of this, the learned counsel brought to my notice the following three judgments of this Court:

"Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 122,- Acceptance of gift - Nature of proof -Very slight evidence is sufficient to prove acceptance of simple gift circumstances can also speak for acceptance of gift mere silence may be indicative of acceptance of gift if donee had knowledge of gift - Acceptance does not require direct evidence and it may be expressed or implied - it may be inferred from facts and surrounding circumstances attending transaction of gift."

13. In the context of the circumstances under which a gift can be possibly revoked and what constitutes acceptance, Mr.N.S. Varadhachari, learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice a judgment of this Court reported in Chennupati Venkatasubbamma v. Nelluri Narayanasamy, 1954 (1) M.L.J. 194. In that case it has been held as follows:

"If there is acceptance of a gift after execution of the deed, even though the registration was postponed to a later date the gift would become irrevocable. But the fact that the deed was executed and registered would not make it irrevocable if in fact there was no acceptance by the donee either before registration but after execution or even after registration. Anterior negotiations or talks about the transfer of property by way of gift would not make it amount to acceptance of the transfer of the property by gift. The law requires acceptance which may even be implied. But the facts relied on to draw an inference of acceptance must be by acts of positive conduct on the pan of the donee or persons acting on his behalf and not merely passive acquiescence such as standing by when the deed was executed or registered.

In the case on hand, I have already found that accepting the gift the plaintiff-had even mortgaged a part of the settled properties under Ex.A. 16 dated 29.11.1984. Besides that the plaintiff had also produced Exs.A.5 and A.6, the land revenue receipt and house tax receipts, standing in the name of the second defendant, which according to her was paid by her. Therefore I am of the opinion that there is more than sufficient evidence in this case to show that there are positive acts on the part of the plaintiff evidencing acceptance of the gift. On facts therefore I find that the judgment reported in Chennupati Venkatasubbamma v. Nelluri Narayanasamy, 1954 (1) M.L.J. 194 brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not get attracted to this case. It is not as though in this case there is total absence of material on the side of the plaintiff for having accepted the gift.