TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the recital in the gift deed that possession had been delivered operated as an admission binding on the plaintiffs and shifted the evidentiary burden on the question of delivery of possession. (ii) Whether the gift of the residential house was invalid for want of delivery of possession where the donor and donees were jointly residing therein.
Issue (i): Whether the recital in the gift deed that possession had been delivered operated as an admission binding on the plaintiffs and shifted the evidentiary burden on the question of delivery of possession.
Analysis: A declaration in a gift deed by the donor that possession had been delivered is an admission against the donor and those claiming under him. Such an admission is not conclusive, but it raises a presumption in favour of the validity of the gift and can be displaced only by cogent evidence. The Courts below proceeded on an erroneous allocation of the burden of proof in treating the donees as required to prove the fact of delivery without giving due effect to the recital in the deed.
Conclusion: The recital constituted an admission binding on the plaintiffs and shifted the evidentiary burden in favour of the donees.
Issue (ii): Whether the gift of the residential house was invalid for want of delivery of possession where the donor and donees were jointly residing therein.
Analysis: Where the donor and donees are closely related and are living jointly in the gifted house, physical withdrawal by the donor is not necessary to complete delivery of possession under the Muslim law of gift. The District Judge was therefore right in treating the residential house differently from the remaining properties and in holding that the gift was operative as to that item.
Conclusion: The gift of the residential house was valid and the cross-objections challenging that finding were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for a finding on the remaining properties after further evidence, while the dismissal of the claim relating to the residential house was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a Muslim gift, a donor's recital of delivery of possession is an admission binding on those claiming under him and raises a rebuttable presumption of valid delivery, while joint residence in a gifted house may satisfy the requirement of delivery without physical vacating by the donor.
TaxTMI 
