ILLOTH VALAPPIL AMBUNHI (D) BY LRS. versus KUNHAMBU KARANAVAN

ILLOTH VALAPPIL AMBUNHI (D) BY LRS. versus KUNHAMBU KARANAVAN

Because the deed of gift expressly recited delivery of possession to the donee and there was no evidence of repudiation or non-acceptance (acceptance could be effected by the donee's trustees/Karnavan), a presumption of acceptance arose; consequently the donor had no authority to revoke the gift and the subsequent deed of cancellation and transfer were void, so the High Court correctly allowed the second appeal and declared the Bhandaram entitled to title and possession.

Parties
Appellant: ILLOTH VALAPPIL AMBUNHI (D) BY LRS.; Respondent: KUNHAMBU KARANAVAN
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 229 of 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court in allowing the second appeal).
Legal Topics
Gift, Acceptance of Gift, Revocation of Gift, Possession, Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Religious/trust Property
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Transfer of Property Act Matters Gift Acceptance of Gift Revocation of Gift Possession +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ILLOTH VALAPPIL AMBUNHI (D) BY LRS.

Appellant

KUNHAMBU KARANAVAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 229 of 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of gift (Exh. A1) had been accepted and taken effect
  2. 2 Whether the donor could unilaterally revoke the gift by executing a deed of cancellation and thereafter transfer the property
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent deed of cancellation and sale were valid and binding on the donee/Bhandaram

Ratio Decidendi

Because the deed of gift expressly recited delivery of possession to the donee and there was no evidence of repudiation or non-acceptance (acceptance could be effected by the donee's trustees/Karnavan), a presumption of acceptance arose; consequently the donor had no authority to revoke the gift and the subsequent deed of cancellation and transfer were void, so the High Court correctly allowed the second appeal and declared the Bhandaram entitled to title and possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court in allowing the second appeal).

Orders

  • High Court judgment declaring the suit property belongs to the Chuzhali Bhagavathi Dharmadeva Bhandaram and declaring the deed of assignment dated 31.07.1971 null and void is upheld
  • Respondents allowed to recover possession of the suit property on behalf of the Bhandaram