Case brief: Gift Deed Is Not Invalid Merely Because It Was Registered after Donor's Death - Dinabandhu Mondal & Ors V. Laxmi Rani Mondal & Ors

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Mr. Durgadas Mondal was the owner of the property. After his death, this property was inherited by his deceased mother named Jagomaya Dasi (donor), and his daughters who are plaintiffs and defendant no.3 in the given case. Mother used to live in the house of defendants (donee). Before her death, she was suffering from many diseases for almost 3 months. She became senseless before 3 days of her death and never regained the same. The gift deed of the suit property was made in favour of sons of defendant no.3 by deceased mother and plaintiffs were unaware of the same. The plaintiffs filed a case in the Trial Court.
2. Defendants contended that the mother of defendant no. 3 used to live their house during her lifetime. She executed a gift deed in favour of defendant no. 1 & 2 on 5th January 1984, when she was alert, fit, and in a capacity to execute such deed. Thus one cannot make deed invalid on the ground that she was completely senseless in her old age. Execution of a gift deed already took place when the said Jagomaya Dasi was fit and healthy, subsequently, the deed was registered after her death. Thus, Trial Court ruled in favour of defendants and dismissed the suit. However, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Then after defendants party filed the 2nd appeal in the High Court of Calcutta.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS / DEFENDANTS

1. Appellants argued that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of their pleading. It was further argued that the plaintiffs did not plead that the said gift deed was executed in favour of the defendants by undue influence upon the donor.
2. According to Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs need to prove the fraud. In the instant case, the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence on the allegation of fraud. The genuineness of the said gift deed was questioned only because the Jagomaya Dasi died after three days of execution of the gift deed and the deed got registered after her death.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS / PLAINTIFFS

1. It was argued by the plaintiffs that, as the mother, Jagomaya Dasi was living with defendants and totally dependent upon them. It is natural and there is a chance that defendants shall dominate the will of the donor. The gift deed in question was in favour of defendants by using undue influence on the donor.
2. Secondly, it was argued by the plaintiffs that the said deed was executed by the donor on dated 5th January 1994 whereas the donor died on 8th January 1994. As appellants contended that at the time of execution of the deed mother was mentally and physically fit, thus plaintiffs argued that then there is no reason why the donor executed the said deed in the house of defendants and not in the local registration office. It was further argued that there is no explanation why the gift deed was registered on 18th January 1994, after the death of the donor. The defendants failed to prove that the said deed was executed voluntarily by the donor.
3. Thirdly, as in this case, defendants in fiduciary relationship onus may be such onus is reversed. Thus prove of onus lies on the defendants in this case. The gift deed was not registered immediately after the execution it shows that donee waited till death of the donor

JUDGMENT OF THE CASE

1. The judgment has been delivered by J, Bibek Chaudhuri.
2. It was observed by the court that if a gift deed fulfills all requirements of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 17 of the Registration Act then it must be a valid gift deed.
3. In the instant case, the gift deed was of the immovable property thus Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act was referred. Requirements of Section 123 of the said Act are, the gift deed of the immovable property must be registered and the registered instrument must be signed by or on behalf of the donor and it is attested by at least two witnesses.
4. The said Jagomaya Dasi, the donor of the deed has executed the gift deed under scribe and one attesting witness. Scribe has stated that he has drafted the questioned deed under the instruction of the said donor when she was physically fit. After drafting, the said deed was explained to the Jagomaya Dasi and she also has put her Left Thumb Impression under the pen of the scribe admitting that the contents of the said gift deed are to be correct. Thus the High Court of Calcutta has observed that essentials of section 123 of the said act are rightly fulfilling here.
5. For the respondents' issue of authenticity of the gift deed court has referred Bhabotosh v. Soleiman. Thus in the instant case respondents cannot raise doubt over the authenticity of the questioned deed even though it was registered subsequent to the death of the donor as this does not offend Section 123 of the said Act.
6. According to PW1’s statement, she was not aware of that the said deed was executed in favour of the defendants by practicing undue influence or fraud upon the donor. The plaintiffs pleaded that the donor had no physical capacity for the execution of the gift deed also they were failed to provide evidence for the same allegation.
7. It was observed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhas Chandra v. Ganga Prasad that if the transaction appears unconscionable then the burden of proof may be reversed but it is not proved in the instant case. Thus the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs. Also, it was not pleaded by the plaintiffs that the execution of the deed of gift was by undue influence or fraud. The donor of the deed of gift was old and infirm thus it is needless to say that undue influence or fraud may arise. For this point court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Rangasamy v. Rangammal .
8. For the reasons stated above, The Court reversed the decision of the learned Judge in the 1st Appellate Court and held that the deed of gift cannot be invalid only because it was registered after the death of the donor. The Court has stated that the execution and attestation of the gift were proved by the defendants. Thus the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, and Section 17 of the Registration Act were fulfilled.

The author is Dhruvi Anajwala, a 3rd Year student from Gujarat National Law University .

References

CASES

JOURNAL ARTICLES

STATUTES

WEBSITES

• • • www.scconline.com
    • www.indiakanoon.org