Voidable gift and limitation under Article 91: knowledge of the transaction's facts starts time running to set aside the deed.
A gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act must be voluntary and without consideration; on the stated facts, influence by family members did not negate voluntariness, so the transfer was voidable rather than void and had to be set aside before title could be challenged. For limitation, Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied to a suit seeking to avoid the gift deed, and time ran from the donor's knowledge of the transaction's facts at execution. Article 141 did not apply, and Section 10 was unavailable because the property was not vested in trust for a specific purpose.
Issues: (i) whether the gift made by Appaji was voluntary or was vitiated by undue influence so as to be void, and (ii) whether the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, or saved by Article 141 or Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether the gift made by Appaji was voluntary or was vitiated by undue influence so as to be void.
Analysis: A gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 must be made voluntarily and without consideration. The finding was that Appaji desired to make the gift and understood its nature, though he acted under the influence of his sister and her husband. Undue influence did not, on these facts, destroy the voluntary character of the gift. The transaction was therefore not void, but only voidable and required to be set aside before the property could be claimed.
Conclusion: The gift was voluntary in law and was not void, but only voidable.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, or saved by Article 141 or Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Analysis: Article 91 applies where an instrument must be cancelled or set aside, and limitation begins when the facts entitling the plaintiff to seek such relief become known. Appaji knew the circumstances of the transaction when the gift deed was executed, and time therefore began to run from that date. The later insanity of Appaji did not postpone the start of limitation. Article 141 did not govern the case, and Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908 could not apply because the property had not become vested in trust for any specific purpose within the meaning of that provision.
Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation, and neither Article 141 nor Section 10 saved it.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit was affirmed, without costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a donor knows the facts constituting undue influence at the time of executing a gift, a suit to avoid the instrument is governed by Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and time runs from that knowledge; such a gift is voidable rather than void, and Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies only to property vested in trust for a specific purpose.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
