Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff, Samsherkha Pathan, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and order dated 11th November 2008 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Wardha, which dismissed his Regular Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2004. The first appellate court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21st August 2004 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, dismissing the plaintiff's Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1997. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner and possessor of a house property in mouza Ramdara, Talegaon, bearing house demand No. 143 (Old No. 726). The defendant No.1 (respondent) was his step-sister, and defendant No.2 was their father. The plaintiff alleged that his father had orally gifted the suit house to him in a partition and had applied for mutation in his name, and that he was paying grampanchayat assessment and was in occupation. He further alleged that the father, due to old age and mental ill-health, was manipulated by the step-sister to execute a registered gift deed dated 9th December 1996 in her favor, which was fraudulent and void. The defendant denied the oral gift and contended that the father had validly gifted the property to her. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral gift and that the gift deed was valid. The first appellate court concurred. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The plaintiff had not produced any documentary evidence of the oral gift or mutation, and the father had not been examined. The gift deed was registered and attested, and there was no evidence of fraud or undue influence. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal, confirming the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Oral Gift - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff claimed title to suit house by oral gift from father - Courts below held that plaintiff failed to prove the oral gift as no evidence of delivery of possession or mutation was produced - Held that the burden to prove oral gift was on plaintiff and he failed to discharge it (Paras 3-10). B) Property Law - Gift Deed - Fraud and Undue Influence - Plaintiff alleged that gift deed in favor of step-sister was obtained by fraud and undue influence on father who was mentally ill - Courts below found no evidence of mental incapacity or undue influence - Gift deed was registered and attested - Held that mere allegation without proof cannot invalidate a registered document (Paras 3-10). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings - Under Section 100 CPC, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence - Courts below had evidence to support their findings - Held that no substantial question of law arose (Paras 1-2, 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff proved his title to the suit house by way of oral gift and whether the gift deed executed by the father in favor of the respondent-defendant was vitiated by fraud or undue influence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral gift and that the gift deed was valid. No substantial question of law was involved.
Law Points
- burden of proof
- oral gift
- gift deed
- undue influence
- fraud
- mental incapacity
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
