Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

sa407.14nsa408.14.odt 12/21 Unless the gift deeds were proved to be bonafide the burden would not shift on the defendant. The learned Counsel relied on the decision in Subhra Mukherjee and another v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And others AIR 2000 SC 1203 in that regard.

12. It was then submitted that the alleged gift deeds were shown to have been executed by the power of attorney holder of two trustees. Unless the document of power attorney was registered, it could not be acted upon. Reliance in that regard was placed on the decision in Ashok Kumar Dulichand Sharma v. Jethmal Motilal Jedia and Ors. 2009 (5) AIR Bom R 753. In any event, it was submitted that both the plaintiffs were closely related to the trustees and therefore transfer of Trust property by the trustees in favour of their relatives was impermissible. For said purpose, reference was made to the decision in Achi Thayar Ammal and others vs. Balkis Nachial AIR 1931 PC 68. The learned Counsel also referred to the evidence on record to indicate that the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.31/2004 had not entered the witness box but had led evidence of her power of attorney holder and hence adverse inference was liable to be drawn. About nine documents had been got executed on the same day by the brother of the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2004 on behalf of the Trust. As there was no intention on the part of Parubai of sa407.14nsa408.14.odt 13/21 transferring the ownership of the properties in favour of the Trust which was clear from the entire evidence on record, mere execution and registration of the alleged gift deeds in favour of the plaintiffs was not sufficient to prove that title had passed over in their favour. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision in Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal & anr. AIR 2009 SC 2122. It was thus submitted that considering the entire material on record, the judgment of the appellate Court did not call for any interference.

16. Perusal of the two gift deeds which are the basis on which the plaintiffs claim title indicate that though according to the plaintiffs there were four trustees, the gift deeds are executed by two trustees and two power attorney holders on behalf of the other two trustees. This fact is admitted by the witness Shamsundar Mundhada in his cross-examination. As held in Ashokkumar Dulichand Sharma (supra), when a document of such nature is executed by the power of attorney holder, the document of power attorney must be duly registered. There is no evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs in that regard.