Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court has held that a gift deed must be weighed on the evidence of its validity first. The Top Court, while hearing a case wherein the very origin of the gift deed was disputed by the executant during her lifetime by a lower court stated that it was right in doing so instead of weighing it on its form and content.

"The fact in issue in the present case is the voluntariness and animus necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed, which is to be examined on the basis of evidence led by the parties who could depose for the truth of this fact in issue. Decision and determination of the fact in issue is by examination of the oral evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue."

A bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that appreciation of evidence is an exercise based on facts and circumstances where the preponderance of probability can take varying forms and configurations.

What facts and circumstances have to be established to prove the execution of a document depends on the plea's put forward, added the court.

"Ordinarily, no one is expected to sign or execute a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that the party executing the document did not know the contents thereof then it may, in certain circumstances, be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to place material before the court to satisfy it that the party who executed the document had the knowledge of its contents...", said the bench.

Factual Matrix:

In the case before court, an appeal was filed by one Keshav and five others against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the land owned by Keshav' mother's sister, one Hardei was allegedly held to have been given by way of a gift deed to one 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 her sister’s son Keshav, the appellant. She did not have any children and Keshav used to take care of her daily needs and requirements.

The trial court while questioning the execution of the gift deed in favour of Gian Chand had noted that no reason was forthcoming as to why Hardei would execute the gift deed in her lifetime in favour of the respondent plaintiffs, when she was living with and was dependant on Keshav for her day-to-day necessities.

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 favour. Application filed by the respondent-plaintiffs for mutation was rejected on May 13, 1989 in view of the contest and objection raised by Hardei which was in fact not challenged and questioned during the lifetime of Hardei.

The top court opined that the concurrent findings of the lower courts delve into the context and factual aspects surrounding the primary evidence viz., gift deed, to conclude that the respondent-plaintiffs case lacks base for a bona fide claim for decree of declaration. 

As far as the impugned judgment was concerned, the court noted that the High Court, unfortunately, chose to ignore and not deal with the fact in issue in the background of the case, but was completely influenced by the evidence led to support execution and registration of the document, and not whether execution was voluntary and in exercise of unfettered will to effect gratuitous transfer of land.

In this regard, the court said that when a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document.

The concurrent findings of the lower courts were found not be perverse but rather good findings based upon cogent and relevant material and evidence on record.

It was found that the lower courts did not adopt a legalistic approach but took into account not one but several factual facets to accept the version given by Keshav that the gift deed was not a valid document. 

Relying on the factual matrix that Hardei, an illiterate and aged woman, who during her lifetime in 1989, had staunchly refuted having executed any gift deed transferring the property to the plaintiffs, was residing with Keshav, who was looking after her and providing for all her needs, and the 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 because of which the rejection by the revenue authority in 1989 remained unchallenged till Hardei died in 1991, the bench went on to allow the appeal.

Cause Title: KESHAV AND OTHERS v GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER