This second appeal by a son challenging a gift deed executed by his son in favor of his daughter was dismissed. The High Court held the property was self-acquired and the lower courts' finding of fact stood. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 58 of 2009
S. Venkatraman, S/o S. Prabhakar Rao, Aged about
43 years, R/o Near Congress Bhawan, Tilak Nagar,
Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Anuradha @ Anuradha Thakur, Aged about 34 years, W/o Surendra Singh Thakur, R/o Near Bhatkande Sangeet School, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. S. Prabhakar Rao, S/o S. Venkatrao, Aged about 75 years, R/o Near Congress Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant:-Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
10/07/2020
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree by which the trial Court dismissed the
2
suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title,
permanent injunction and for declaring the gift
deed dated 16/06/1994 executed by defendant No. 2
in favour of defendant No. 1 as null and void.
3.Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the
Courts below have concurrently erred in holding
that entire property held by defendant No. 2 was
his self-acquired property and he has rightly
gifted the suit property admeasuring 1192.5 sq. ft.
and the house situated therein out of his total
property in favour of defendant No. 1 (his
daughter), and the plaintiff is not entitled for
declaration of title as well as declaration of gift
deed dated 16/06/1994 as null and void and is
further not entitled for 1/3rd share in the entire
property, as such, the appeal deserves to be
admitted by formulating substantial question of law
in this regard.
4. A careful perusal of the record would show that the total property admeasuring 6211 sq. ft. Plot No. 34 Sheet No. 7 situated at Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur was gifted to defendant No. 2 by his parents which has been found to be established by both the Courts below and in turn, defendant No. 2 has only gifted 1192 sq. ft. of land out of the total property as
3
well as the house situated therein to defendant
No. 1 (his daughter), which the plaintiff (son of
defendant No. 2 and brother of defendant No. 1) has
called in question by instituting the instant suit
claiming 1/3rd share in the entire property and has
also sought declaration of gift deed dated
16/06/1994 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of
defendant No. 1 as null and void.
5.Both the Courts below have rightly and concurrently
held the suit property to be the self-acquired
property of defendant No. 2 which he received as a
gift from his parents and therefore, he was fully
entitled to gift the said suit property admeasuring
1192 sq. ft. of land and the house situated therein
in favour of his daughter defendant No. 1 by gift
deed dated 16/06/1994. The aforesaid finding is a
finding of fact which suffers from no illegality
and much less no perversity could be shown by
learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff despite
his long submission. Even otherwise, the gift deed
dated 16/06/1994 which is sought to be declared as
null and void by the plaintiff was not brought on
record.
6. In my considered opinion, the finding recorded by both the Courts below qua nature of the property held by defendant No. 2 and out of that, suit
property gifted by him in favour of his daughter
defendant No. 1 is a pure and simple finding of
fact. I do not find any reason to interfere with
the said finding of fact recorded by both the
Courts below.
7. Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding that the suit property is self-acquired and validly gifted by the appellant is a finding of fact requiring interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Venkatraman
Smt. Anuradha @ Anuradha Thakur
S. Prabhakar Rao
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court