KESHAV & OTHERS VS GIAN CHAND & OTHERS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2022

FACTS OF THE CASE 

In this case, Keshav & Others vs Gian Chand & Another. On 4th/6th of december, 1991 Gian chand & Dhanbir instituted a civil suit form the possession of the property left by hardei as per the gift deed dated 23rd december, 1985 which was registered with the sub registrar, salooni on 1st january, 1986. Gian Chand & Dhanbir were put in the possession of land. Keshav in collusion and 6 other defendants mutated the land in his favor illegally,and Gian Chand & Dhabir prayed for (i) a decree of declaration that Gian Chand & Dhanbir are actually the owners possessing the land. (ii) a decree of permanent injunction that Keshav and other defendants will not interfere in the possession of the land.(iii) a decree of possession for the land they got disposed of by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. On this Keshav and others initiated the suit on the grounds that he was Keshav who was taking care of the land and the Hardei for the last 15 years and which she accepted livingly in front of Revenue Authorities. Another fact was that Hardei denied the execution of the gift deed and always aversed the request of mutation in the favor of Gian Chand & Dhanbir, Which request was dated in 1989.

ISSUES

In the Supreme Court of India, following issue was raised:

• That gift deed should be the only basis for giving the possession or Voluntariness And Animus is Necessary.

ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff’s argument: Gian Chand and Dhanbir, the plaintiff, argued that they were put in possession of the land by Hardei. Keshav in connivance with other defendants had got mutation recorded in his favour, which mutation was wrong and illegal and did not affect their rights under the gift deed.

Defendant’s argument:  Keshav had been inducted as tenant on the suit land by Hardei and ever since he had been in possession as tenant and was paying rent in kind to Hardie and was taking care of her needs, has therefore acquired rights over the land and during Hardie’s lifetime, she had denied execution of the gift deed and opposed the request of mutation of the land in favor of the defendant.

JUDGEMENT

In the case, an appeal was filed by Keshav and five others against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the land owned by Keshav’ mother’s sister, Hardei was allegedly held to be given by way of a gift deed to Gian Chand who was the son of Hardei’s brother. 

Hardei had died issueless in 1991, she was an old illiterate lady who used to live in a village with Keshav, the appellant. Keshav, her sister’s son used to take care of her daily needs and requirements. 

The court while questioning the execution of the gift deed in favour of Gian Chand had noted that no existing reason as to why Hardei would execute the gift deed in her lifetime in favour of the  plaintiffs, when she was living with and was dependent on Keshav for her everyday needs. It was further noted by the trial court that Hardei had denied execution of the gift deed before the revenue authority in 1989, when the respondent-plaintiffs had moved an application for mutation of the land in their own favour. Application filed by the plaintiffs for mutation was rejected on May 13, 1989 because of the objection raised by Hardei. 

Then, the apex court noted that the High Court, chose to ignore and not deal with the fact in issue in the background of the case and was solely influenced by the evidence led to support execution and registration of the document, and not whether execution was voluntary and in exercise of unrestricted will to effect the unjustified transfer of land.

The court stated that when a person gets any benefit from another, the court will call upon the person who has a wish to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he had exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document.”

Relying on the factual matrix that Hardei, an illiterate and aged woman, who during her lifetime in 1989, had refused having executed any gift deed transferring the property to the plaintiffs, was residing with Keshav, who was also looking after her and was providing for all her needs, and another fact that the plaintiffs did not take any steps to get the mutation of the land records for about four years from January 1, 1986 till 1989 as the result of which the rejection by the revenue authority in 1989 remained unchallenged till Hardei died in 1991. 

Recording the aforesaid, the court stated, “we set aside the impugned judgment and uphold the decision and decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.”

REFERENCES

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118549545/
• https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/gift-deed-must-be-weighed-touchstone-validity-first-supreme-court

    This Article is written by Vikrant Rawat of Lloyd Law College, intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin