RENIKUNTLA RAJAMMA Vs. K. SARWANAMMA
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 17,2014
Renikuntla Rajamma
Appellant
VERSUS
K. Sarwanamma
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MANBHARI V. NAUNIDH [REFERRED TO]BALMAKUND V. BHAGWANDAS [REFERRED TO]
ALABI KOYA V. MUSSA KOYA [REFERRED TO]
PHULCHAND V. LAKKHU [REFERRED TO]
LALLU SINGH V. GUR NARAIN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN PRASAD AND ANR. V. HARISINGH [REFERRED TO]
NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKER VS. PRANJIVANDAS MAGANLAL THAKKER [REFERRED TO]
K BALAKRISHNAN VS. K KAMALAM [REFERRED TO]
REVAPPA VS. MADHAVA RAO AND [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH VS. MANMOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TRICOMDAS COOVERJI BHOJA VS. SRI SRI GOPINATH JIU THAKUR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MAHALINGAM PADAYACHI (DECEASED) VS. RANGANATHA PADAYACHI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-894] [REFERRED TO]ANDE SAMBASIVA RAO VS. GUNTI RAMA SUBBA RAO AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2019-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
P. PRANJALI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
B. BANUMATHI VS. RAJKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
M.GAUTAM SINGH VS. B.KIRAN LATA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-119] [REFERRED TO]
S.MANJULA VS. G.SHOBA [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-303] [REFERRED TO]
S. SAROJINI AMMA VS. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI SREEKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABI PODDER AND ORS. VS. KRISHNA PODDER AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
S. PUSHPAVATHI VS. K. JAMUNA [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-137] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVANI MUNICIPALITY VS. V.S.R. ARTHANARISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH NATH AND ORS. VS. FULU RANI DEVI [LAWS(GAU)-2015-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA BASU MALLICK & ANR. VS. SRI PRAMATHA NATH SEN [LAWS(CAL)-2016-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATHI AMMAL VS. MINOR @ MUTHU KOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-745] [REFERRED TO]
SULEKHA DEVI @ SOBHANA VS. AJITH KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-235] [REFERRED]
PARVATIBEN ISHWARBHAI VS. KASHIBEN CHATURBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
K. BHASKARAN (DIED) VS. B. PRAMILA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
TENZING SAMCHOK BHUTIA VS. HEALTH CARE & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2021-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
S. PACKIALAKSHMI VS. K. BASKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-163] [REFERRED TO]
BOHRA RAM VS. KHAZANA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-169] [REFERRED TO]
G.SARASWATHI VS. K.GANESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS VS. BHOLU & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAMANI AMMA VS. VIMALA KUMARI [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHINI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN MEHTA VS. SURESH MEHTA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLUBOYINA NAGARAJU VS. MOLLETI RAMUDU ALIAS VIJAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
KOPPOLU OBANNA (DIED) VS. BHEEMUNIPADU ABRAHAM (DIED) [LAWS(APH)-2017-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM DADHARA VS. SUNSBALA DADHARA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI, KAWARDHA VS. SHASHI PRABHA DEVI [LAWS(CHH)-2020-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMAMOORTHI VS. N.JAYACHANDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
S.NAGALAKSHMI VS. S.VIJAYAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTHIRI VS. GOVINDAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA KHOSLA VS. SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
GURUSAMY VS. PALANIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-513] [REFERRED TO]
VELAYUDHAN PILLAI SREEKUMAR VS. S SAROJINI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
KAPILDEO NARAYAN AGARWAL VS. SEBA AGARWAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
P K DEVAYANI AMMA VS. V N KESAVAN NAMPOOTHIRI [LAWS(KER)-2017-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
C.KUMARASAMY VS. P.THAMAYANTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-193] [REFERRED TO]
R SIVAKOZHUNDHU VS. A N KARUPPANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-395] [REFERRED TO]
P.A.G. KUMARAN VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, SANTHOME [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR GAYEN VS. JANJALI GAYEN [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-85] [REFERRED]
PREM KALI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SITAPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
KASANI SUBBA RAO VS. PULI RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2024-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
BAJ SINGH VS. NIKKO [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
B.M.KOTTESWARAN AND ANOTHER VS. R.DEVASENA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
N DHAYA POOMKAMAZH VS. PUSHPABAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-335] [REFERRED]
RAMKARAN VS. THAKUR DAYAL [LAWS(CHH)-2020-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SYAMALA RAJA KUMARI AND OTHERS VS. ALLA SEETHARAVAMMA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
M. LAKSHMI MOHAN RAO VS. P. SREE RAMA MOHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-2018-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)An apparent conflict between two earlier decisions rendered by this Court one in Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker & Ors, 1997 2 SCC 255 and the other in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & Ors, 2004 1 SCC 581 has led to this reference to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement as to the true and correct interpretation of Sections 122 and 123 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Before we deal with the precise area in which the two decisions take divergent views, we may briefly set out the factual matrix in which the controversy arises.
(2.)The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal filed O.S. No.979 of 1989 for a declaration to the effect that revocation deed dated 5th March, 1986 executed by the defendant-appellant purporting to revoke a gift deed earlier executed by her was null and void. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that the gift deed executed by the defendant-appellant was valid in the eyes of law and had been accepted by the plaintiff when the donee-defendant had reserved to herself during for life, the right to enjoy the benefits arising from the suit property. The purported revocation of the gift in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in terms of the revocation deed was, on that basis, assailed and a declaration about its being invalid and void ab initio prayed for.
(3.)The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant herein on several grounds including the ground that the gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was vitiated by fraud, mis-representation and undue influence. The parties led evidence and went through the trial with the trial Court eventually holding that the deed purporting to revoke the gift in favour of the plaintiff was null and void. The Trial Court found that the defendant had failed to prove that the gift deed set up by the plaintiff was vitiated by fraud or undue influence or that it was a sham or nominal document. The gift, according to trial Court, had been validly made and accepted by the plaintiff, hence, irrevocable in nature. It was also held that since the donor had taken no steps to assail the gift made by her for more than 12 years, the same was voluntary in nature and free from any undue influence, mis-representation or suspicion. The fact that the donor had reserved the right to enjoy the property during her life time did not affect the validity of the deed, opined the trial Court.
(2.)The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal filed O.S. No.979 of 1989 for a declaration to the effect that revocation deed dated 5th March, 1986 executed by the defendant-appellant purporting to revoke a gift deed earlier executed by her was null and void. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that the gift deed executed by the defendant-appellant was valid in the eyes of law and had been accepted by the plaintiff when the donee-defendant had reserved to herself during for life, the right to enjoy the benefits arising from the suit property. The purported revocation of the gift in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in terms of the revocation deed was, on that basis, assailed and a declaration about its being invalid and void ab initio prayed for.
(3.)The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant herein on several grounds including the ground that the gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was vitiated by fraud, mis-representation and undue influence. The parties led evidence and went through the trial with the trial Court eventually holding that the deed purporting to revoke the gift in favour of the plaintiff was null and void. The Trial Court found that the defendant had failed to prove that the gift deed set up by the plaintiff was vitiated by fraud or undue influence or that it was a sham or nominal document. The gift, according to trial Court, had been validly made and accepted by the plaintiff, hence, irrevocable in nature. It was also held that since the donor had taken no steps to assail the gift made by her for more than 12 years, the same was voluntary in nature and free from any undue influence, mis-representation or suspicion. The fact that the donor had reserved the right to enjoy the property during her life time did not affect the validity of the deed, opined the trial Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.