Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over 4 acres of land in Survey No. 100/2. The plaintiff, Gokarnabai, claimed ownership based on a registered gift deed dated 16.06.1967 executed by Sadashiv in her favour, alleging that the deed incorrectly described the property and sought rectification to reflect the middle portion. The defendants, Datta, Ruprao, and Ramesh Unhale, claimed title through a registered Will dated 30.05.1973 executed by Sadashiv. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the donor's intention to gift the middle portion and that the defendants proved their title via the Will. The lower appellate court reversed, decreeing the suit for rectification and possession. In second appeal, the High Court examined whether the lower appellate court's findings were perverse. The High Court noted that the gift deed described the property by boundaries, not as a middle portion, and the Will supported the defendants' title. The plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove the donor's intention. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower appellate court's decree and restoring the trial court's dismissal.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Rectification of Gift Deed - Donor's Intention - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 26 - The plaintiff sought rectification of a gift deed to correct the description of the property, claiming the donor intended to gift 4 acres from the middle portion of Survey No. 100/2. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the donor's intention to gift the middle portion, as the gift deed described the property by boundaries and the Will executed later by the donor supported the defendants' title. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Gift Deed vs. Will - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 - The plaintiff bore the burden to prove that the gift deed did not reflect the true intention of the donor. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, while the defendants established their title through a registered Will. The High Court upheld the trial court's findings, noting that the lower appellate court's reversal was based on misreading of evidence. (Paras 3-5) C) Property Law - Possession - Title - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 122 - The plaintiff claimed possession based on the gift deed, but the trial court held that possession alone does not confer title. The High Court agreed, stating that since the plaintiff failed to prove title, she was not entitled to restoration of possession. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rectification of a registered gift deed dated 16.06.1967 by correcting the description of the property gifted, and whether the lower appellate court's findings on donor's intention and possession are sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 30.07.2003, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.04.2000 dismissing the suit.
Law Points
- Rectification of instrument
- Gift deed
- Burden of proof
- Donor's intention
- Will
- Possession
