Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondents (family members of the donor and members of the Kizhakke Veethil Tarwad) seeking a declaration that a deed of cancellation and a subsequent sale deed were invalid. The suit property originally belonged to Raman Aithan Ashari, who executed a gift deed (Exh. A1) in favour of the Chuzhali Bhagavathi Dharmadeva Bhandaram (a deity), reciting delivery of possession. The appellant claimed that the gift was not accepted by the donee, so Raman remained owner, cancelled the gift unilaterally on 15th July 1971, and sold the property to the original appellant on 31st July 1971. The trial court and first appellate court held the gift invalid for want of acceptance, dismissing the suit. The Kerala High Court in second appeal reversed, declaring the gift valid and the subsequent deeds void, ordering recovery of possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the recital of delivery of possession in the gift deed raised a presumption of acceptance, which the appellant failed to rebut. The gift to a deity could be accepted by its trustees, including the donor himself as a co-trustee, and there was no evidence of repudiation. The High Court correctly identified a substantial question of law regarding the validity of the gift and the perversity of the concurrent findings. The unilateral cancellation by the donor after valid acceptance was void under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Gift - Acceptance - Presumption - Section 122, 126 - Where a gift deed recites delivery of possession to the donee, a presumption of acceptance arises in favour of the donee, and the burden of proving non-acceptance lies on the party asserting it. The High Court correctly applied this principle to a gift in favour of a deity (Bhandaram) where trustees accepted possession. (Paras 20-21) B) Transfer of Property Act - Gift to Deity - Acceptance by Trustee - Section 122, 126 - A gift to an idol or deity can be accepted by any person on its behalf, such as a trustee or Karnavan. The fact that the donor himself was a co-trustee does not invalidate acceptance; non-repudiation by other trustees indicates acceptance. (Paras 24-25) C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 - The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 is confined to substantial questions of law. A finding of fact that is perverse (based on no evidence or contrary to law) gives rise to a substantial question of law. The High Court may re-appreciate evidence to determine perversity. (Paras 9-14) D) Transfer of Property Act - Revocation of Gift - Unilateral Cancellation - Section 126 - Once a gift is validly accepted, the donor cannot unilaterally revoke it. A deed of cancellation executed without the consent of the donee is void and does not affect the donee's title. (Paras 15-16, 26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal under Section 100 CPC, and whether the gift deed was validly accepted by the donee (deity) so as to preclude unilateral revocation by the donor.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Kerala High Court's judgment. The Court held that the gift deed was validly accepted, the unilateral cancellation was void, and the sale deed was null and void. The respondents were entitled to recover possession of the suit property on behalf of the Bhandaram. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Presumption of acceptance of gift arises from recital of delivery of possession
- Burden of proof on party challenging recital
- Gift to deity accepted by trustees
- Unilateral cancellation of gift by donor is void
- High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial question of law
- Perverse finding gives rise to substantial question of law
