Dismissed

Attingal Amateur Athelectic Association v. Kerala Sports Council

Title Suit – Gift Deed

Kerala HC25 May 2022AS/287/1998

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal against a decree declaring title and possession in favor of the Kerala Sports Council. The court held that a 1964 gift deed was valid, the subsequent cancellation deed was void ab initio, and the appellants were estopped from challenging the transfer due to lapse of time and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the decree in the underlying suit is dismissed with costs.

Attingal Amateur Athelectic Association Vs Kerala Sports… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

AS NO. 287 OF 1998

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31-10-1997 IN OS 206/1989 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶7

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶8

1 ATTINGAL AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DAMODARAN UNNIKRISHNAN, CHITHRAJYOTHI, SREEPADAM STADIUM, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL.

¶9

2 D.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O LATE G.DAMODARAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, RETD.DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, AGED 58, SECRETARY OF THE IST DEFENDANT, CHITRAJYOTHI, SREEPADOM STAIDUM, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL.

¶10

3 REMA UNNIKRISHNAN, W/O.SRI.D.UNNIKRISHNAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, HOUSWIFE, AGED 48, OF DO.

¶11

4 S.S.HARIHARA IYER, S/O LATE SRI.SUBRAMANIA IYER, HINDU, TAMIL BRAHMIN, BUSINESS MAN, AGED 63, BHAGAVATHI NIVAS, VELIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL.

¶12

5 PRESIDENT, ATTINGAL AMEATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ATTINGAL.

¶13

6 VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, S/O KUMARAN, AGED 58, HINDU, SREEVILAS, NEAR P.H.E.D OFFICE, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL.

¶14

BY ADV K.P.SANTHI.

¶15

A.S No.287 of 1998 2

¶16

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :

¶17

KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SR. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SMT.P.K.RADHIKA.

¶19

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

A.S No.287 of 1998 3

¶21

P.SOMARAJAN, J.

¶22

------------------------------------------------

¶23

A.S No.287 of 1998

¶24

----------------------------------------------------

¶25

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2022.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

A suit for declaration of title and possession based on

¶28

Ext.A1 deed of gift of the year 1964 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the trial court, against which the appellants/defendants came up mainly on the ground that earlier in the year 1959, Ext.B1 gift deed was executed by then Maharaja of Travancore in favour of the defendant Association with a condition that a Stadium should be constructed over the property for the benefit of the general public and sports person. It is admitted that Ext.B1 of the year 1959 is a conditional gift and the condition incorporated therein was not complied with. Necessarily, conditional gift would fail due to noncompliance of the conditions incorporated therein. It is thereafter, Ext.A1 gift deed of the year 1964 was executed in favour of the plaintiff, wherein the defendant is a

¶29

A.S No.287 of 1998 4

¶30

consenting party and a signatory. The gift was accepted and delivery was effected and acted upon by constructing a Stadium over the property. Since the defendant is a party to Ext.A1 deed of gift of the year 1964, he cannot wriggle out of the liability under the document and the transfer thereon. In fact, the defendant is estopped from pleading anything against the 1964 gift deed Ext.A1, since there is lapse of more than 35 years and that the gift deed was acted upon by taking delivery of possession and construction of a Stadium over it by the donee, the plaintiff, under Ext.A1 gift. The cancellation deed executed in the year 1977 unilaterally by the defendants has no legal effect and hence ab initio void. Hence the decree and judgment of the trial court deserves no interference. The appeal is really unwarranted. Hence, it is dismissed with costs.

¶31

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶32

amk

¶33

P.SOMARAJAN, J.

¶34

-----------------------------

¶35

A.S No.287 of 1998

¶36

---------------------------

¶37

Dated 25-05-2022.

¶38

J U D G M E N T

Attingal Amateur Athelectic Association v. Kerala Sports Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attingal Amateur Athelectic Association v. Kerala Sports Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Comapny Ltd. Vs C.S Valsala

Thushara Dicroos Vs Priyanka Paily

Varghese @ Thankachan Vs Sosmma Varghese @ Leelamma

Nisha N.S Vs Muhammed Sunaj

Fr.K.C.Samuel Vs Saramma Kuruvila

Kutty Vs Shamon