Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the finding entered by the courts below that Ext.A1 was not accepted by the donee is erroneous in that, courts below failed to note that the gift as per Ext.A1 was in favour of the Bhandaram which, for all legal purposes should be treated as a minor and hence, acceptance of the gift by the Bhandaram is not warranted. According to learned counsel even at the time of Ext.A1, Raman Aithan Ashari (donor) was one of the trustees of the Bhandaram and after Malingan Chuzhali Ashari who was then the Karnavan, Raman Aithan Ashari became the Karnavan and in that capacity he possessed the suit property for and on behalf of the Bhandaram. According to learned counsel, in the light of the recitals in Ext.A1 onus of proof was on the respondent to show that Ext.A1 was not accepted or acted upon. It is also contended that Ext.A1 does not provide for its revocation by the donor and in the absence of any such power, its revocation could have been done only through a court. Further contention is that so far as Ext.A1 remained valid, its cancellation by Raman Aithan Ashari as per Ext.B11 is invalid and consequently, Ext.B1, assignment deed could not confer any right on the respondent. Appellants therefore, prayed that recovery as prayed for be granted. Learned counsel for respondent contended that the finding entered by the courts below that Ext.A1 was not accepted is a finding of fact which this Court is not required to interfere in a Second Appeal. It is contended that at any rate, the relief sought in respect of Ext.B11 is barred by limitation since the suit was admittedly filed after three years of Ext.B11. Learned counsel placed reliance on Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The further contention is that there is no presumption regarding acceptance of gift even if it is not onerous and there is no evidence to show that Ext.A1 was accepted. According to the learned counsel it is not pleaded and proved when exactly Malingan Chuzhali Ashari died. In the absence of evidence accepting the gift during the lifetime of Malingan Chuzhali Ashari Ext.B11, cancellation deed dated 27.7.1971 and the subsequent assignment (Ext.B1) in favour of the respondent should stand.

6. It is indisputable that an idol is to be treated as a minor for all legal purposes. Hence, the acceptance of the gift as per Ext.A1 could be by any person on behalf of the donee. It is not disputed that Malingan Chuzhali Ashari was the Karnavan of the tharawad during the time of Ext.A1 and that along with Malingan Chuzhali Ashari, the donor (Raman Aithan Ashari) was also a trustee of the Bhandaram. It is contended by the respondent and, the courts below also found that there is no evidence to show that the gift was accepted by or on behalf of the donee at any time during the life time of donor (Raman Aithan Ashari). Learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the decisions in Nani Amma Janaki Amma v. Kesava Kurup Gopala Kurup & Others [1969 KLR 355], Narayani Bhanumathi v. Lelitha Bhai [1973 KLT 961], Kakkacherra v. Chiyyayi [1988 (2) KLT 910], G.K.Krishnan v. K.Vasu and Others [1992 (1) KLJ 144] and Baby Ammal v. Rajan Asari [1997(1) KLT 340] contended that unlike in English Law, there is no presumption of acceptance of gift even if it is not onerous and hence, the court cannot start with the presumption that Ext.A1 not being onerous was accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Learned counsel contended that Ext.B4 series and Ext.B5 series would show that donor has been paying the rent and revenue inspite of Ext.A1 which indicated that he was asserting right over the property as its absolute owner. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence to show that at any point of time acting upon Ext.A1, rent or revenue was paid on behalf of the donee during the life time of Malingan Chuzhali Ashari or Raman Aithan Ashari (the donor). Learned counsel referred to me the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in that regard.

8. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent it has been held that there cannot be a presumption regarding acceptance of the gift, be it not onerous and that there must be some evidence to show that the gift was accepted during the life time of the donor but, what is stated in those decisions is concerning the presumption as to the acceptance of the gift. But when the document itself recited that the possession of the property was given to the donee, then, a presumption of acceptance of gift would arise in favour of the donee. It was so held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi [AIR 1995 Madras 415]. The Supreme Court in K.Balakrishnan v. Kamalam [AIR 2004 SC 1257] held that when the gift is in favour of a minor created by the mother, natural guardian and she retained possession and the right of enjoyment, ownership of property by minor can be presumed by silent acceptance. In Asokan v. Lakshmikutty referred supra, it was held that:-

(underline supplied) Therefore, though there is no presumption regarding acceptance of gift though not onerous, when the deed itself said that possession of the property is given to the donee, then, there is a presumption regarding its acceptance and the burden of proving that the said recital is not correct lay on the party who asserted so.

9. In this case, Ext.A1 states that:

(underline supplied) The further recital in Ext.A1 that from the day of Ext.A1 itself, the then Karnavan (Malingan Chuzhali Ashari) acting on behalf of the Bhandaram was to enjoy the property strengthened the recital regarding transfer of possession as per Ext.A1. I stated that Ext.A1 is not a onerous gift. There is no case or evidence that Malingan chuzhali Ashari was unaware of the gift. There is also no reason why Malingan Chuzhali Ashari should not have accepted the gift on behalf of the Bhandaram. In that circumstance there is no reason why the donee had not accepted the gift. It is pertinent to note that Ext.A1, the original gift deed was produced by the appellants from their custody.