Summary
The Court restored dismissal of a suit challenging a mother’s gift to one of her sons. The figure of Rs.5,000 in the registered gift deed and mutation order represented valuation for charges, not consideration paid to the donor. The High Court had misconstrued those documents and improperly displaced supported concurrent findings in second appeal.
Issues
- Whether the stated valuation amounted to consideration invalidating the gift.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent factual findings under Section 100 CPC on the stated grounds.
Provisions considered
- Section 122, Transfer of Property Act, 1882A gift must be without consideration, but valuation for stamp duty, registration or mutation charges was not payment of consideration. (¶¶ 5, 14, 15)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court erred in reappreciating evidence to substitute a contrary finding where the concurrent findings were supported by the record and its interpretation of the gift document was mistaken. (¶¶ 11, 16)
Held
- The donor had acquired title by will, and the record established her property as self-acquired. The registered gift deed did not record receipt of consideration. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Both the gift deed and mutation order referred to Rs.5,000 as the property’s valuation for the applicable charges. The High Court’s inference that the donor received that amount as consideration was incorrect. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The allegation that the gift lacked free consent was unsupported by evidence. On the pleadings and evidence before it, the High Court could not upset the supported findings of the trial and first appellate courts by reappreciating facts in second appeal. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the declaration suit dismissed. No order as to costs.