Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Smt. Sanjukta Ray vs Bimelendu Mohanty And Ors. on 15 October, 1996 cites

Kamakshi Ammal vs Rajalakshmi And Others on 7 February, 1995

Specific recital in the deed that possession has been handed over to the donee. When such recital is there, presumption arose that possession has been handed over 10 the donee. Onus in such cases is on the person who claims that notwithstanding such recital possession was not given. (See Fatima Bibi v. Khairum Bibi, AIR 1923 Madras 52 and Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Madras 415. There is no doubt that it is rebuttable presumption. The plaintiffs have failed to displace the presumption. Circumstances arc the particulars which accompany an act, the surroundings of an act. While considering whether there was a valid gift, intention of the donor, execution of the deed and acceptance are pivotal features. Title of Sita Devi to the entire 238 decimals of leasehold property is not in dispute, as is the sale of AO/90 decimals. A significant accepted position is gift of AO.81 decimals to younger daughter Sakuntala. At the time of settlement, it was noticed that she was in possession of AO.84 decimals. This has not been challenged. Conduct of donor in making gift to Sankuntala, the younger daughter which has not been challenged, is a significant factor. Unusual conduct cannot be indicated to the gift made to Sanjuta, the elder daughter. Normal human conduct is a circumstance, unless exceptional circumstances for departure arc made out. Two gifts arc claimed to have been made; the latter one to younger daughter. A reasonable inference can be drawn about the intention of the donor to make the gift to Sanjukta. When execution of deed of gift in her favour is not disputed, plaintiffs are to prove that the execution was sham and was never intended to be acted upon. There is no clear circumstance to come to such conclusion. It is claimed that deed of gift was not acted upon by acceptance. Possession of the deed of gift, as indicated above is a strong circumstance in support of acceptance. Admittedly it is in possession of Sanjukta. There is no plausible explanation offered by plaintiffs how the deed which is a registered document came to her possession. Plaintiffs claim that land and buildings continued to be in possesion of the donor, and this has been stated in the deed in favour of Sakuntala. Possession by self occupation or by letting it to others can be with implied permission. Closer the relationship, stronger would be the presumption in favour of such permissive possession. To conclude otherwise, some hostile animus by conduct of the donor ought to have been proved. Where from factum of possession, two inferences can be drawn, either of permissive possession or rightful possession, inference in favour of the former would be more reasonable. Absence of relationship of distant relationship may have tilted the balance in favour of the latter. But that is not the case here. Long silence without demur on the part of plaintiffs without any explanation is a vital factor. Payment of rent in name of donor, in whose name land had been mutated, and building has been recorded cannot be a circumstance to defeat valid title of Manjukta. Peruming the entire evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that learned trial Court has not appreciated the same, by giving undue importance to circumstances as highlighted above, thereby rendering this finding vulnerable.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 31 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1