Summary
The Supreme Court restored the concurrent decrees giving the heirs of Govindammal a 2/3rd share in family property under a 1963 settlement deed. The High Court erred in recharacterising the deed as a gift for want of 'adequate consideration': consideration need not be monetary, and the deed recited past and future care of the transferors and charitable work. The High Court had also exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in upsetting concurrent findings.
Issues
- Whether the High Court in second appeal was justified in overturning the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
- Whether the 1963 deed in favour of Govindammal was a settlement deed or a gift deed.
Provisions considered
- Section 122 (definition of 'gift'), Transfer of Property Act, 1882A gift is a voluntary transfer of existing property without consideration, accepted by the donee. Since the deed was supported by non-monetary consideration, the Court held it was not a gift. (¶¶ 13, 15.4, 15.5)
- Section 2(24) (definition of 'settlement'), Indian Stamp Act, 1899Relied on for the meaning of settlement, which is not defined in the Transfer of Property Act: a non-testamentary written disposition made, among other purposes, to distribute property among family or provide for dependants, or for religious or charitable purposes. (¶ 13)
- Section 2(d), (e) and (f), Indian Contract Act, 1872The definition of consideration, read with CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and Chidambara Iyer, showed that consideration includes any act, abstinence or promise and need not be monetary. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Relying on Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, V. Ramachandra Ayyar, Nazir Mohammed and Suresh Lataruji Ramteke, the Court reiterated that the High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact and held that no ground justified the reversal. (¶¶ 16, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4)
Held
- Consideration need not always be monetary and may take other forms. A transfer made in recognition of the transferee having looked after the transferors, on the footing that she would continue to provide for their food and shelter and use the property for charitable work, is supported by consideration. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4)
- The High Court erred in treating the deed as a gift because 'adequate consideration' was absent and the transfer was made out of love and affection; that was too narrow a view of consideration, particularly for a settlement among members of a family. (¶¶ 14, 15, 15.5)
- The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC to disturb concurrent findings of fact is limited: a second appeal does not lie on an erroneous finding of fact, however gross, and a substantial question of law is a precondition. None of the conditions justifying interference was met here. (¶¶ 16, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4)
- The heirs of Govindammal were accordingly entitled to a 2/3rd share in the suit property, as decreed by the courts below. (¶¶ 16.4, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside and the decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court granting a 2/3rd share restored; pending applications disposed of.