1971 (7) TMI 165 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the gift deed executed by Parvathiammal in favor of Duraiswamy.
2. Whether the gift deed was valid as a family arrangement.
3. Consideration for the properties transferred in the gift deed.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal arose from a suit filed by Muthu Bhattar against Seetha-lakshmiammal and her son Subba Bhattar alias Shanbagakannu, along with two temples, seeking a declaration and possession of shares in temple services and an Inam village. The dispute centered around a gift deed executed by Parvathiammal in favor of Duraiswamy, challenging the validity of the transfer of properties and rights covered by the gift deed without consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, affirming the validity of the gift deed.

Issue 2: The first appellate court rejected the argument that the gift deed could be upheld as a family arrangement, emphasizing that it lacked evidence of such an arrangement and was executed as a voluntary gift without coercion. The High Court, in the second appeal, upheld the validity of the gift deed, emphasizing the absence of consideration did not invalidate the transfer of properties and rights.

Issue 3: The Division Bench of the High Court allowed a new argument regarding consideration to be raised, despite not being pleaded or raised in previous proceedings. The court found that the discharge of encumbrances on properties other than those gifted indicated consideration, contrary to the original understanding that the gift was without consideration. The Supreme Court criticized the Division Bench for allowing a new point on consideration without proper pleading or opportunity for the defendants to respond.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and directed the case to be reconsidered by the High Court to address the crucial legal question of whether the gift deed was executed with consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and not introducing new arguments without due process.