KUVERJI KAVASJI SHET Vs. MUNICIPALITY OF LONAVALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain land from the Municipality of Lonavla. The Municipality took possession of the land in suit for the purpose of making a road in June 1908. In July 1903 the plaintiff s father was pressed by the Managing Committee of the Municipality to give over the land to the Municipality by way of gift, and, according to the finding of the lower appellate Court, which may be taken as a fact now, the plaintiff s father consented to make a free gift of the land to the Municipality. Beyond recording a resolution with reference to this so-called gift nothing further was done by the Municipality, nor by the plaintiff s father. Plaintiff s father died a few years later; and in 1914 the present suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of the land from the Municipality. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff s father had acquiesced in the possession of this land being retained by the Municipality for such a long time and that on account of his consent to make a gift of the land to the Municipality the plaintiff s title was extinct.

(2.) In both the lower Courts the defendant has succeeded and the plaintiff s suit has been dismissed.

(3.) In the appeal to this Court it is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that in the absence of any registered deed as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act the gift could not be complete in law and that the title to the land is still vested in the plaintiff. On behalf of the respondent Municipality there is practically no answer to this contention based on the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, But it is urged that the plaintiff is estopped from contending that the title is still vested in him in consequence of what happened between the plaintiff s father and the Managing Committee of the Municipality in July 1903. It is clear that the mere consent of the plaintiff s father to make a gift of the land was not sufficient to vest the land in the Municipality. According to Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act the title required to be conveyed by a registered deed signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. That was not done, and therefore in law the title remained in the plaintiff. The suit is brought within twelve years from the date on which the Municipality took possession, and unless the plea of estoppel is made out, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the land.