1974 (9) TMI 133 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the deed of surrender executed by the plaintiff.
2. Confirmation of possession of the suit lands.
3. Validity of the deed of gift executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff.
4. Allegations of fraud and coercion in the execution of the deed of surrender.
5. Whether the deed of surrender extinguished the title conveyed by the deed of gift.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Deed of Surrender Executed by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration that the deed of surrender executed on July 1, 1963, was invalid and inoperative. The trial court held that the deed of surrender was brought into existence by playing fraud and practicing coercion upon the plaintiff, rendering it an invalid document. Consequently, the deeds of gift executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants 2 to 5 conferred no title on them. However, the appellate court took a contrary view, holding that the deed of surrender was genuine and operative, not vitiated by fraud or coercion.

2. Confirmation of Possession of the Suit Lands:
The plaintiff also sought confirmation of possession of the suit lands described in the plaint. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of possession, but the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the deed of surrender extinguished the plaintiff's title.

3. Validity of the Deed of Gift Executed by Defendant No. 1 in Favor of the Plaintiff:
The trial court found that the deed of gift dated April 8, 1963, executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff was not fraudulent or executed under coercion. However, it held that defendant No. 1, being only a maintenance holder, had no right to execute the deed of gift. The appellate court did not affirm this finding and proceeded on the basis that the deed of gift bestowed a valid title on the plaintiff.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Coercion in the Execution of the Deed of Surrender:
The plaintiff alleged that the deed of surrender was executed under pressure, undue coercion, and fraud by the defendants. The trial court accepted this claim, but the appellate court rejected it, finding no evidence of fraud or coercion.

5. Whether the Deed of Surrender Extinguished the Title Conveyed by the Deed of Gift:
The appellate court interpreted the deed of surrender as an act of the plaintiff conveying her title to defendant No. 1, thereby extinguishing her own right and title. However, the higher court found that the deed of surrender (Ext. D) was not a validly attested document and did not satisfy the conditions of a valid deed of gift under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the plaintiff had disowned her title in the suit lands in the deed of surrender, indicating no intention to transfer property. The court held that a transfer of property requires the transferor to have an interest in the property being conveyed, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:
The higher court concluded that the deed of gift executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff was valid and binding, resulting in a complete transfer of interest. The deed of surrender was invalid and did not extinguish the plaintiff's title. Therefore, the plaintiff retained full title to the suit property and was entitled to the reliefs claimed. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the appellate court were set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored, albeit for different reasons. The plaintiff was also entitled to costs.