TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1953 (3) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8-8-1922. For a long time, Ramachandriah had no issue. On 15-5-1930, by Ex. S-6, Ramachandriah purported to gift away items 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff subject to certain conditions. The place of residence of Ramachandriah and the plaintiff's father was Nadendla, a village within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Chilakalauripet. The document was executed at Chilakalauripet in the Karnam's house. It was presented for registration on the subsequent day, 16-5-1930 at Chilakalauripet and was registered. The plaintiff bases his title to the suit properties on this gift deed. 3. The case of the defendants, the first defendant being the daughter born to Ramachandriah 274 days after the date of the gift deed and the second defendant being her husband, who however died pending suit, was that when this document was received by post by Ramachandriah on 17th or 18th of May 1930 at Nadendla he complained after having the document read over to him, he being illiterate, to D. Ws. 4 and 5, that he was defrauded by Subbaiah, the father of the plaintiff who was then a minor, as it was represented to him that the document was a will executed in accordan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Courts below that in fact possession of the properties continued under Ramachandriah till the date of the death of Ramachandriah's wife Ran-gamma which happened on 8-9-1933. The first defendant the daughter of Ramachandriah born after the execution of the gift deed, claimed the properties as the heir of her father and she pleaded that the deed of gift was vitiated by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. Further she also raised the contention that the gift was not accepted before it was revoked by Ex. B-8 and that therefore the cancellation was valid and good. 5. On these contentions, the learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit framed as many as 6 issues, leaving out of consideration the general issue, and of these the two principal issues were those relating to fraud which according to the defendants vitiated the gift deed and the other relating to the acceptance of the gift deed left before it was revoked. The learned Subordinate Judge, after an exhaustive and careful consideration of the evidence adduced by both sides, came to the conclusion that the gift was vitiated by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation; and that it was not accepted before it wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft by the donee must be during the lifetime of the donor. It therefore follows that if there is acceptance of the gift after execution of the deed, even though the registration was postponed, to a later date, the gift would become irrevocable. The fact that the deed was executed and registered would not make it irrevocable, if in fact there was no acceptance by the donee either before registration but after execution or even after registration. See -- 'Papathi Animal v. Doraiswami Naicker', AIR 1930 Mad 290 (C). The crucial dates in the present case are the date of execution of the deed Ex. B-6, i.e., 15-5-1930, and the date of the deed of revocation Ex. B-8, dated 19-5-1930, which was communicated on 4-6-1930 to the donee's father by registered notice. One has to see whether between these two dates, there is anything in the evidence to show that there was acceptance by or on behalf of the donee. It is found concurrently by both the Courts that notwithstanding the execution the deed continued to remain in the hands of the donor even after its registration. It was the donor that presented the document for registration on 16-5-1930 and got it registered. The possession o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not known what the learned Judge had in mind when he referred to a statement in Ex. B-7 and the learned counsel for the respondent was not able to say what the learned Judge meant by that sentence in that paragraph; nor am I able to find anything to signify acceptance of the gift before it was cancelled. Exhibit B-7, the reply notice, it must be remembered, was issued long after the cancellation of the gift deed by Ex. B-8 and the issue of notice on 4-6-1930. Even if under Ex. B-7 the father had accepted as he did the gift deed that would be ineffective in law to constitute acceptance as by that time the gift deed was revoked. The learned Judge sums up in that paragraph his conclusion thus: "That statement (the statement in Ex. 7) though it is ineffective to constitute acceptance on the date of Ex. B-7 may be used to reinforce the conclusion that we may draw on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 9, 6 and 7 and the production of Exs. A-7 and A-8 in Court by P. W. 9 that he accepted the gift on behalf of his son when the deed was executed. I find that the gift was accepted by P. W. 9 on behalf of his minor son, the plaintiff on the date of the execution of Ex. B-6 and tha....