1922 (3) TMI 8 - HC - Indian Laws

Widow's oral gift claim for cash balance from deceased husband's estate dismissed for lack of written transfer

Rameshwar Narain Singh Versus R Knath Koeri

The Patna HC dismissed the plaintiff's suit claiming an oral gift of cash balance from her deceased husband's estate. The Court found the alleged oral ... - The core legal questions considered by the Court in this appeal are:1. Whether there was a valid verbal gift by Raja Ram Narain Singh of the cash balance standing to the credit of Rani Ram Kumari at the time of her death in favor of the plaintiff (his wife).2. Whether Raja Ram Narain was competent to make a gift of the undisposed accumulations (cash balance) of Rani Ram Kumari to the plaintiff.3. Whether the alleged oral gift, if any, was legally effective to transfer title to the plaintiff.4. Whether the defendant was bound to render an account of his dealings with the Ram Kumari villages and the cash balance.5. Jurisdictional question: Whether the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court or fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.6. Limitation question: Whether the suit was barred by limitation in respect of claims for accounts and recovery of sums.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Existence and Validity of the Oral Gift of Cash BalanceThe legal framework requires that a gift of movable property must be effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery, and must be accepted by or on behalf of the donee during the lifetime of the donor, as per sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Additionally, actionable claims such as rent arrears can only be transferred by an instrument in writing under section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.The plaintiff's original case, as pleaded, included a gift of both villages and the 'tahvil' (cash and kind) including rent arrears by a registered document dated 17th June 1911. However, this was abandoned because the registered instrument did not include the cash balance or rent arrears, and the plaintiff shifted to alleging an oral gift of the cash balance at or about the same date.The Court found this oral gift inherently improbable. Given the existence of a registered gift of the villages, there was no reason why the cash balance could not have been included in writing, especially since part of the gift (rent arrears) legally required a written instrument. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to explain why the gift was oral when a registered document was possible and customary.Regarding evidence, the defendant's account books, regularly examined and sealed by Raja Ram Narain, showed no transfer of the cash balance to the plaintiff's account after Rani Ram Kumari's death. The plaintiff challenged the genuineness of these books but failed to prove suppression of any genuine rokar (account book) showing such transfer. The Court agreed with the lower Court that the cash balance was not entered in the plaintiff's rokar, undermining the claim of gift.The oral evidence presented by the plaintiff was found unreliable and insufficient. The learned Subordinate Judge had expressed skepticism about the loose conversations recalled years later, and the appellate Court concurred, giving no weight to such testimony.Further, the Court scrutinized the entries in the account books relied upon by the plaintiff to support the oral gift. These entries were found to be equally consistent with the defendant's denial and did not conclusively prove the gift. The Court held that in the absence of direct evidence and a written instrument, the entries must be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis to establish the gift, which was not the case here.2. Competency of Raja Ram Narain to Make the Gift of Undisposed AccumulationsThe Court examined whether Raja Ram Narain had the legal capacity to gift the undisposed cash savings of Rani Ram Kumari. The villages were granted to Rani Ram Kumari as a maintenance grant (lease), not as an estate by inheritance. Thus, the title to the villages remained with Raja Ram Narain, and the grant was limited to rents and profits, not the immovable property itself.The Court distinguished this case from precedent involving Hindu widows' estates where savings followed the estate. Here, since the grant was only a maintenance grant and no estate vested in Rani Ram Kumari, the undisposed accumulations could not be said to have vested in Raja Ram Narain. Consequently, he was not competent to gift these undisposed savings to the plaintiff.3. Effectiveness of the Alleged Gift TransactionThe plaintiff's witnesses testified to conversations between Raja Ram Narain and the defendant indicating an intention to gift the villages and the cash balance to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff herself was not party to these conversations, nor did she accept or authorize the defendant to accept the gift on her behalf.Under Indian law, a gift requires transfer of possession or delivery of the property to the donee or to a third party authorized to hold it on the donee's behalf, along with acceptance by or on behalf of the donee during the donor's lifetime.The Court found that no delivery or transfer of possession occurred to the plaintiff. The defendant remained in possession, acting under Raja Ram Narain's direction, without any evidence that the plaintiff authorized the defendant to hold the property as her agent. The Court relied on the principle illustrated by the case of Godts v. Rose, emphasizing that delivery to a third party without the donee's acceptance or agency does not constitute effective delivery for a gift.Therefore, the alleged oral gift transaction did not operate to transfer title to the plaintiff.4. Obligation of the Defendant to Render AccountThe plaintiff sought an account of the defendant's dealings with the Ram Kumari villages and the cash balance. The defendant was the manager of these properties and maintained account books regularly examined by Raja Ram Narain.The Court held that while the plaintiff might be entitled to recover specific sums standing to the credit of Rani Ram Kumari at her death if the gift was established, she failed to prove the gift. The defendant was not an express trustee of the funds for the plaintiff, and the agency relationship was with Raja Ram Narain or Rani Ram Kumari, not the plaintiff.5. JurisdictionThe defendant contended that the suit was barred from Civil Court jurisdiction under section 139(7) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Deputy Commissioner for suits by landlords against agents concerning rent collection and accounts.The Court differentiated between the plaintiff's claim for recovery of specific sums (which was cognizable by the Civil Court) and the claim to re-open accounts of Rani Ram Kumari's estate (which was cognizable only by the Revenue Court). Since the suit invited examination of accounts of the agent's dealings with rents and profits, it fell within the Revenue Court's exclusive jurisdiction to that extent.6. LimitationThe Court applied Article 89 of the Limitation Act, holding that the suit for recovery of specific sums standing to the credit of Rani Ram Kumari at her death was not barred by limitation. However, the claim to re-open accounts and establish a larger sum was barred, as the right to sue for account ended three years after Rani Ram Kumari's death, and the suit was filed beyond that period.Significant Holdings'The case of the oral gift is inherently improbable.''An actionable claim can not be transferred by word of mouth; it could only be transferred by an instrument in writing signed by the transferor.''The undisposed of accumulations could not be regarded as having vested in Raja Ram Narain. I hold that Raja Ram Narain was incompetent to make a gift of the undisposed of savings to the plaintiff.''There is no evidence that the plaintiff ever assented to make the defendant her agent to hold for her the goods given to her by her husband. In my opinion, the transaction did not operate to transfer the property in the goods to the plaintiff.''The suit as constituted undoubtedly invited the Court to go into the accounts of Rani Ram Kumari, and, in my opinion, it was not cognizable by the Civil Court of Hazaribagh.''The plaintiff has failed to establish the case which she made in the plaint.'The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.