LAWS(APH)-1983-11-48

TATEEF KHAN Vs. ABDUL BASIFH KHAN

Decided On November 09, 1983
TATEEF KHAN Appellant
V/S
ABDUL BASIFH KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant The Respondent laid the suit originally for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, but later amended the plaint and sought for recovery of possession. The trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal it was confirmed.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent, now accepted by the Courts below, that plot Nos. 1 and 2 were purchased by the appellant for his benefit as well as the respondent, the minor son of his brother. Subsequent thereto, he made a gift over of plot No. 2 to the Respondent represented by his mother as guardian an in pursuance thereof they were taken to the plot, demarcated the plot by putting up wooden pegs and delivered procession to her. She accepted the gift, Immediately thereafter, the appellant took her and his wife to the Sub Registrar's office and executed and registered a sale deed in favour of his wife in respect of plot No. 1 and a gift deed Exhibit B-1 dated 4th May, 1967, in favour of the respondent Thus the gift over is complete. Subsequently, it emerges that the appellant unilaterally revoked the gift under Exhibit B-7 dated 28th July, 1973, which was not consented to by the Guardian of the respondent and therefore, the revocation is not valid and binding on him.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that he purchased the property by himself and he had no intention whatsoever to gift over to the respondent. When he was on death bed, the maternal uncle and the mother of the respondent played fraud on him stating that he may execute a will on favour of the respondent, for which he agreed. Without knowing the contents of the document, he subscribed his signature. But subsequently, he came to know that fraud was planed on him therefore he revoked the same by executing in revocation deedl Exhibit B-7 there is no offer not acceptance of the gift nor delivery of possession of the property to the respondent. Therefore, the gitt is not complete. Thus the respondent does not acquire any title to the property.