S P MUTHUSAMY Vs. V THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The suit for specific performance to execute a gift deed as per the agreement dated 16.2.1977 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Coimbatore and the present appeal is against this judgment.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: THE plaintiff claimed that he was a close and intimate friend and the confidential adviser of the first defendant's father late Palanisamy Gounder, who owned large extent of properties. THE first defendant's was living with her father Palanisamy Gounder. According to the plaintiff, in view of his close association with the first defendant's father and at her request, he influenced the mind of the first defendant's father and got a will dated 27.11.1967 executed by him, bequeathing almost all his properties in favour of the first defendant. THE plaintiff helped the first defendant in the suit filed by one P.K. Palanisamy for specific performance. According to him, he also helped her when a dispute about the will of her father was raised. In recognition of the plaintiff's assistance and support, the first defendant promised to convey, by means of gift, an extent of three acres of land and executed a letter of agreement dated 16.2.1977. However, she did not execute the gift deed inspite of several repeated demands, and on the contrary, she alienated certain portions of the land promised to be conveyed to him, both prior to and subsequent to the suit and hence, the above suit was filed. THE first defendant opposed the relief and denied any such assistance pleaded by the plaintiff in her favour. She denied of having executed any agreement as alleged. She also pleaded that the plaintiff would have utilised blank papers obtained from her when certain litigations were pending, in the guise of preparing affidavits. On these pleadings, nine issues were framed and after a detailed examination of the matter, the learned Judge found that the agreement dated 16.2.1977 in favour of the plaintiff is true. However, the learned Judge held that the agreement is opposed to public policy inasmuch as the gift deed was agreed to be given for assisting the first defendant to obtain a will in her favour and to defend the case unlawfully. THE learned Judge also found that the plaintiff cannot seek for specific performance of such an agreement. It was also found that the alienations made in favour of defendants 2 to 12 were valid and that they were bonafide purchasers of the properties. THE appeal is against this judgment.

(3.) "Gift" has been defined under Sec.122 of the Transfer of Property Act as the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the donor to another called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. As per this definition, the gift could be made only voluntarily and without consideration. The appellant, in his plaint, has categorically stated that he seeks for a direction and decree to the first respondent to execute a gift deed. He further says that the agreement was made in consideration of his alleged assistance to the first defendant.