Second appeal dismissed. The High Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the suit for cancellation of a 1975 gift deed was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, and that the allegation of coercion was not proved.
The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.291/2014
All Sons of Late Shri Revati Lal, B/c Swarankar, R/o Akahigarh, tehsilNadbai, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) at present residing at Jaipur.
...Appellants
Versus
Both by Caste—Swarankar, R/o Ramgarh Pachwara, Tehsil-Lalsot, District-Dausa (Raj.)
...Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Kant Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
16/01/2018
Heard the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff
(2 of 7)
[CSA-291/2014]
(hereinafter ‘plaintiff’) and the respondents-defendants
(hereinafter ‘defendants). Also perused the judgment dated
10.4.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lalsot, District
Dausa affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011
passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lalsot, Dist. Dausa
dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for cancellation of gift deed dated 18.10.1975 registered on 28.10.1975 with the Sub-Registrar
Lalsot.
A gift deed dated 18.10.1975 was executed by one
Revati Lal in favour of the defendant-Ishwar Dayal his brother-in-
law’s son and was registered with the Sub-Registrar Lalsot on 28.10.1975. This gift deed pertained to Revati Lal’s 1/4th share in
agricultural land jointly purchased with his brothers in law
including the father of Ishwar Dayal. It is an admitted fact that
Revati Lal at no point of time impugned the gift deed in issue
before he expired about 10 years subsequent to its execution. On
(3 of 7)
[CSA-291/2014]
04.05.2005 one Moti Devi widow of Revati Lal and her sons/
daughters now the appellants before this Court, filed the suit for
cancellation of the gift deed dated 18.10.1975 registered on
28.10.1975.
The Trial Court on pleading of the parties struck two
issues. One as to whether the gift deed dated 18.10.1975
registered on 28.10.1975 was liable to be cancelled for reason of
being executed under coercion. The second was whether the suit
filed in the year 2005 impugning the gift deed of 18.10.1975 was
barred by limitation.
The trial court held that the said suit was palpably hit
by limitation in terms of Article 59 of the Schedule appended to
the Limitation Act, 1963 which inter alia provides that a suit for
cancellation of an instrument can be filed within a period of three
years commencing the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to
have the instrument first came to his knowledge. It found that
(4 of 7)
[CSA-291/2014]
from the evidence on record that the donor Revati Lal despite
having survived 10 years following the execution of the gift deed
at no point of time sought its cancellation. Further amongst the
plaintiffs, Revati Lal’s widow in her evidence admitted that soon
after executing the gift deed Revati Lal had come crying to her
and complained of having allegedly been coerced into executing
the gift deed. Yet no steps for cancellation were taken within the
limitation of three years. Besides the plaintiff Gopal admitted that
relationship with his maternal uncles and cousin, the defendants
was amicable till about two years prior to the laying of the suit
which was unlikely if there was objection to the execution of the
gift deed by his father of which his mother knew at the relevant
time as admitted by her. The trial court in the circumstances
disbelieved the plaintiff’s case that they had no knowledge of the
gift deed dated 18.10.1975 till shortly before the suit was filed in
(5 of 7)
[CSA-291/2014]
were at all times in possession of the land under the gift deed
dated 18.10.1975 and no evidence at all obtained at the plaintiff’s
instance as asserted by them that the possession of the
defendant’s was as sharecroppers and their claim to possession on
the basis of the gift deed was asserted only some time in early
seeking cancellation of gift deed dated 18.10.1975 was hopelessly
barred by limitation. On the issue of coercion in the execution of
the gift deed the trial court found the case not proved from the
evidence and circumstances of the case. The Appellate Court has
affirmed the aforesaid findings while dismissing the plaintiffs first
appeal.
Mr. Shyam Kant Sharma counsel for the appellant has
emphatically submitted that in terms of Section 122 of the
Transfer of Property Act, a gift deed can be executed only
voluntarily and when not so done but instead founded on fraud or
(6 of 7)
[CSA-291/2014]
coercion stands legally vitiated and is liable to be cancelled. He
submitted that coercion in the execution/registration of the gift
deed dated 18.10.1975 was made out from the evidence on
record and the courts below acted perversely in yet not setting
aside/quashing the gift deed dated 18.10.1975. It was submitted
that the suit was filed within limitation as the plaintiff’s came to
knowledge of the gift deed dated 18.10.1975 only when the
defendant’s disavowed then sharecropper states and propagated
the purported gift deed of 18.10.1975 in 2005.
There is no force in the contention of Mr.Shyam Kant
Sharma counsel for the plaintiff. The submissions are de-hors the
evidence on record as considered in detail by the courts below
which have on appreciation found both the issue of limitation and
alleged coercion in execution of the gift deed against the plaintiffs.
I am of the considered view that the impugned judgments are
based on finding of fact. The findings of the trial court and
(7 of 7)
[CSA-291/2014]
affirmed in appeal are unexceptional and even not remotely
perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the second
appeal.
Dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Himanshu/89
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for cancellation of the gift deed was time barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the gift deed was executed under coercion and liable to be set aside.
Gopal Ram
Nemi Chand
Shyam Lal
Gulraj
Baldev
Krishna Devi
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
