Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Gift Deed Void for Lack of Acceptance and Possession. The court held that a gift deed executed by a husband in favor of his second wife without acceptance and delivery of possession is void under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the property remains joint family property subject to partition.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a partition suit filed by Rakhamabai (first wife) and Ushabai (daughter) against Subhadrabai (second wife) and others. The deceased Shriram Chandrabhan Aghav married Rakhamabai (plaintiff No.1) and later Subhadrabai (defendant No.2). He had children from both marriages. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was joint family property and sought partition. The defendants, including Subhadrabai, claimed that Shriram had executed a gift deed in favor of Subhadrabai, making her the absolute owner. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the gift deed valid. The first appellate court reversed the decision, declaring the gift deed void and granting partition. The defendants appealed to the High Court. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the gift deed and the nature of the property. It held that the gift deed was void for want of acceptance and delivery of possession under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, the property remained joint family property, and the plaintiffs were entitled to partition. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the first appellate court's decree.

Headnote

A) Transfer of Property Act - Gift Deed - Validity - Section 122 - The court examined whether a gift deed executed by a husband in favor of his second wife was valid. It held that for a gift to be valid, there must be acceptance and delivery of possession. In this case, the donee did not accept the gift and possession was not delivered, rendering the gift deed void. (Paras 10-15)

B) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Partition - The court considered whether the suit property was joint family property. It held that the property was ancestral and joint, and the gift deed being void, the property remained joint, entitling the plaintiffs to a share by partition. (Paras 16-20)

C) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 - The court allowed the second appeal as it involved substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the gift deed and the nature of the property. (Paras 1, 21)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the gift deed executed by Shriram in favor of his second wife Subhadrabai is valid and binding on the plaintiffs, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit property.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the decree of the first appellate court. The gift deed was declared void, and the plaintiffs were entitled to partition of the suit property.

Law Points

  • Gift deed void for want of acceptance and delivery of possession
  • Section 122 Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882
  • Joint family property
  • Partition suit
  • Second appeal maintainability on substantial question of law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 82

Second Appeal No. 353/2017

2022-06-10

S.M. Modak, J.

Mr. R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate for Appellants; Mr. V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for Respondents

Vitthal Shriram Aghav and others

Rakhamabai Shriram Aghav and another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against the decree of the first appellate court in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

The appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the decree of the first appellate court which declared the gift deed void and granted partition to the plaintiffs.

Filing Reason

The appellants challenged the first appellate court's decision that the gift deed executed by Shriram in favor of Subhadrabai was void and that the plaintiffs were entitled to partition.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed the suit holding the gift deed valid. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, declaring the gift deed void and granting partition.

Issues

Whether the gift deed executed by Shriram in favor of Subhadrabai is valid and binding on the plaintiffs? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit property?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the gift deed was validly executed and accepted by Subhadrabai, and that the property was her absolute property. Respondents argued that the gift deed was never accepted and possession was not delivered, hence void, and the property remained joint family property.

Ratio Decidendi

For a gift to be valid under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there must be acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession. In the absence of these, the gift deed is void. The property in question being joint family property, the plaintiffs are entitled to partition.

Judgment Excerpts

For a gift to be valid, there must be acceptance and delivery of possession. The gift deed is void for want of acceptance and delivery of possession.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed a partition suit in the trial court, which was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed to the first appellate court, which reversed the trial court's decision. The defendants then filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 122
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Gift Deed Void for Lack of Acceptance and Possession. The court held that a gift deed executed by a husband in favor of his second wife without acceptance and delivery of possession is v...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Blacklisting of Supplier by Central Bank of India for Non-Supply Due to Force Majeure. Natural Calamity in Thailand Constitutes Force Majeure Excusing Performance Under Contract Law Principles.