NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKER Vs. PRANJIVANDAS MAGANLAL THAKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court made in F.A. No. 421 of 1974 on 13-9-1979. The admitted facts are that one Motilal Gopalji was the owner of the properties hearing Revenue Survey No. 172/8 situated in Pratapnagar area of the city of Baroda. The property consists of 15 rooms of the chawl and an open land surrounding the same. The appellant is the sister of the first respondent. Motilal Gopalji had executed a gift deed. Ex. 111 dated 15-5-1965 in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, he had executed another deed, Ex. 198 dated 9-6-1965, cancelling the said gift. He executed a Will in favour of the appellant and another brother of the appellant on 17-5-1966. Motilal Gopalji died two days thereafter, i.e., 19-5-1966. Consequently, the respondent laid a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Baroda for declaration of his title to the properties and injunction restraining the appellant and her brother from collecting the rents. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, it was confirmed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(2.) Shri R. P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that a reading of the recitals of the gift deed and the cancellation deed do clearly indicate the intention of the donor and the donee, namely, the gift was not complete. It was a conditional one. He reserved life interest in the property and had not handed over the possession of the property; nor had the donee accepted the gift, thereby, the gift was incomplete. The gift which was duly cancelled became inoperative during the lifetime of the donor. The donor had cancelled it within one month of the gift. Subsequently, he had executed a Will in favour of the appellant and her brother. Thereby, the Courts below were wrong in construing that the gift became operative and by operation of gift deed dated 15-5-1965 the donor Motilal Gopalji was devoid of power to cancel the gift deed. It is contended by Shri Dholakia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. It is stated that Motilal Gopalji had delivered symbolic possession to the respondent. What he preserved was only right to collect rent for his maintenance and thereafter he had no power to cancel it. The recitals in the cancellation deed are not material. Only the recitals in the gift deed have to be considered. On their own face value they do indicate that Motilal Gopalji had divested himself totally of the right, title and interest in the property, the subject-matter of the gift over. Consequently, he had no power to cancel the gift and the Will executed by Motilal Gopalji was inoperative. We find no force in the contention for the respondent.

(3.) It is now well-settled legal position that a document has to be read harmoniously as a whole giving effect to all the clauses contained in the document which manifest the intention of the persons who execute the document. The material part of the gift deed reads as under :