KASI AMMAL Vs. VELLAI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and the defendants are the respondents. THE suit property originally belonged to plaintiff's husband Seetharama Goundar. Under the original of Exhibit A-1, the said Seetharama Goundar settled the suit property in favour of his wife, the plaintiff herein. On the basis of the settlement deed, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants. THE first defendant contended that the settlement deed (Exhibit A-l) was never acted upon, and Seetharama Goundar himself has revoked the settlement deed under Exhibit B-5 and he is a bona fide purchaser for value from Seetharama Goundar under Exhibit B-1 and the plaintiff is not entitled to a decision and recovery of possession as prayed for. THE trial Court held that a valid settlement has been executed in favour of the plaintiff under the original of Exhibit A-l and the subsequent revocation deed (Exhibit B-5) is an invalid instrument and will not in any way affect the rights of the plaintiff to the suit property. THE trial Court further held that the first defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value, of the suit properties from the plaintiff's husband and on these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that there was no valid acceptance of the gift by the plaintiff under Exhibit A-1 and the gift under Exhibit A-1 is, therefore, void under section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and as the settlement deed is void and not acted upon, the plaintiff's husband executed Exhibit A-5 revoking the settlement deed, and the first defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value and the plaintiff is not. therefore, entitled to the declaration and recovery of possession prayed for in the plaint. Aggrieved against the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal to this Court.

(2.) UNDER section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immovable property should be made by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. The second requirement is there must be acceptance of the gift by the donee. In the instant case there is no dispute regarding the compliance of the first condition. Regarding the compliance of the second condition vis., acceptance of the gift by the donee, the plaintiff herein, the appellate Court has held, that there is no acceptance of the gift by the donee and even the original of Exhibit A-l was not handed over to her. Exhibit A-1 recites: Thus Exhibit A-1 clearly recites that the possession of the property covered under it has been handed over to the donee, the plaintiff herein. "Apart from the recitals in Exhibit A-1, P.Ws. 2 and 3, the attestors to Exhibit A-1 have also given evidence that plaintiff has accepted the gift under Exhibit A-1. Thus the twin requirements of valid execution of the gift deed and acceptance of the gift by the decree, are clearly established by the evidence on record. Exhibit A-l shows that it is an irrevocable deed and the plaintiff's husband Seetharama Goundar has not reserved any power of revocation under Exhibit A-1. On the other hand, Seetharama Goundar has clearly stated in Exhibit A-1, that he, would not revoke the settlement deed (Exhibit A-l) for any reason whatsoever. The recitals in Exhibit A-l, thus clearly establish that it is an unconditional, absolute gift in favour of the plaintiff. When there is a valid gift under Exhibit A-l and the property has vested in favour of the plaintiff, Seetharama Goundar is not competent to execute Exhibit B-5 and revoke the settlement deed which he had executed under Exhibit A-1. Exhibit B-5, is therefore an invalid instrument and has been rightly ignored as not affecting the rights of the plaintiff to the suit property which she got under the original of Exhibit A-l.