Regular second appeal by appellant challenging judgment declaring gift deed valid and granting title to respondent. Court dismissed appeal, holding contiguity of land does not negate acceptance, especially where donee paid land revenue for 10 years.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/27TH POUSHA, 1935
RSA.No. 443 of 2012 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 7/2009 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA DATED 2101-2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 84/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,KATTAPPANA DATED 04-07-2009
APPELLANT(S):
P.J.JACOB, S/O JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS PADINJAREPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNAPPARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE
BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
RESPONDENT(S):
SOSAMMA JOSEPH, D/O JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS PADINJAREPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT BLOOSOM HOUSE, PUNCHAVAYAL ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK PIN - 686 509
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN (R) R1 BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA.V
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SB
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
===================
R.S.A 443 of 2012
===================== Dated this the 17th day of January, 2014.
The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for
declaration of title and for consequential relief. The plaintiff relied upon Ext. A1 gift deed of 1993 executed by her father. She contended that the gift was accepted by her; mutation was effected and the land revenue was also paid. On appeal, the defendant contended that Ext. A1 gift deed was executed by the donor in the year 2000. The main plank of the contention raised by the defendant is that, Ext. A1 was not accepted or acted upon. To substantiate that contention the appellant has relied upon the observation made by the Advocate Commissioner that the plaint schedule property and the remaining property of the plaintiff's father were lying contiguously without any separate boundary. It was also contended that the right to take income from the property was reserved in favour of the donor's wife (respondent's mother) till her death.
R.S.A 443 of 2012
2
The second appeal is, hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
// TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the absence of a physical boundary between the gifted property and the father's remaining property negates acceptance of the gift.
Whether unilateral cancellation of a gift deed is permissible when the donee had accepted it and paid revenue for 10 years.
P.J.JACOB
SOSAMMA JOSEPH
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
