Registered release deed treated as valid gift transfer where wording showed clear intention to convey title.

A registered instrument styled as a release deed was upheld because the challenge of misrepresentation failed on the facts: the executant had taken legal advice, presented the deed for registration himself, and his conduct showed awareness of its nature. The deed also operated as a valid transfer by way of gift, because its operative terms expressly relinquished the executant's rights and vested absolute enjoyment in the transferees. The form of the document was not decisive; the controlling factor was the intention to transfer ownership, together with compliance with the statutory requirements for a gift by registered instrument, including execution and attestation. The respondents' title under the instrument was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deed of release was vitiated by misrepresentation. (ii) Whether a deed styled as a release deed, executed without consideration, could operate as a conveyance by way of gift.

Issue (i): Whether the deed of release was vitiated by misrepresentation.

Analysis: The appellant failed to establish that he was misled about the nature of the document. He obtained legal advice, executed the deed after consulting his lawyer, presented it for registration himself, and his subsequent conduct was consistent with knowledge of the transaction. The plea of misrepresentation was treated as an afterthought and the burden of proof was not discharged.

Conclusion: The deed was not vitiated by misrepresentation.

Issue (ii): Whether a deed styled as a release deed, executed without consideration, could operate as a conveyance by way of gift.

Analysis: A registered instrument may transfer title if its operative language shows an intention to transfer ownership. Under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift can be made by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. The document in question expressly disclaimed the executant's rights, declared the transferees entitled to hold and enjoy the properties absolutely, and was duly signed and attested. The objection based on the form of the deed as a release was rejected, and the objection under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also failed on the facts.

Conclusion: The deed operated as a valid transfer by way of gift and effectively conveyed title.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to have the deed set aside, and the respondents' title under the instrument was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered instrument styled as a release deed may operate as a valid transfer of title, including by way of gift without consideration, if its terms clearly evince an intention to transfer ownership and it satisfies the statutory requirements of execution and attestation.

---