Harginder Singh and another v. Manjeet Kaur & Ors

Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4-A. Name of respondent No.7 stands deleted vide order dated 15.10.2024. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No. 83-N/13 of 2018, whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in Civil Suit No. 135/1 of 2010, were affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:38836 )

#2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court.

#3. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the original plaintiff, Sohan Singh, was the owner in possession of the suit land. He had three sons, namely Tarsem Singh, Harginder Singh, and Raghubinder Singh. Sohan Singh executed a registered gift deed dated 26.05.2009 in favour of his son, Tarsem Singh. Subsequently, Tarsem Singh sold a portion of the suit land to Sundari Devi (defendant no. 5) vide a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2009.

#4. Tarsem Singh died in August 2009. After his death, Sohan Singh filed a suit challenging the gift deed on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, alleging it was illegal, null, and void. He claimed the deed was executed on the assurance from Tarsem Singh that the land would not be sold or transferred, as Sohan Singh was residing in the house on the suit land. The cause of action arose in July 2010 when the plaintiff learned of the sale deed and again on 21.08.2010 when defendant no. 5 allegedly attempted to take forcible possession.

#5. Defendants no. 1 to 4 contested the suit, asserting that Tarsem Singh was maintaining his parents while the other sons were separate, and the gift was made voluntarily out of love and affection. They further submitted that Sohan Singh had later executed a will dated 03.11.2009, bequeathing his property to his other sons and grandsons, thereby excluding the share already gifted to Tarsem Singh. 3 ( 2025:HHC:38836 )

#6. They alleged that the present suit was filed without Sohan Singh's knowledge, after obtaining his thumb impression. Defendant no. 5, Sundari Devi, contended she was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of 1,80,000 and was in possession of the suit land. She ₹ asserted the gift deed was executed voluntarily and the sale consideration was spent on the maintenance of Sohan Singh and his wife.

#7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed 31-08-2011: “1. Whether the Gift dated 26-05-2009 executed by plaintiff in favour of Late Sh. Tarsem Singh , the pre-decessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 is result of fraud and misrepresentation played by the defendant No. 5, as alleged? …. OPP.

#2. Whether the sale deed dated 14-07-2009 executed by the predecessor of defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 is null and void, as alleged, as alleged? …………..OPP

#3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? …...OPP

#4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? ...OPP

#5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

#6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

#7. Whether the defendant No. 5 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, as alleged? .. OPD

#8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? ...OPD

#9. Relief.

#8. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellants argued that the trial court's judgment was based on surmises and conjectures, ignoring documentary and oral evidence. A key contention was that the essential ingredient of a valid gift 4 ( 2025:HHC:38836 ) under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is the delivery of possession to the donee, and since the respondent, Sundari Devi, had admitted that possession remained with Sohan Singh, the gift was not proved. It was further argued that there was no evidence to prove that Sohan Singh resided with or was maintained by Tarsem Singh to establish the love and affection necessary for the gift. The appellants also alleged collusion, pointing out that the witnesses to the gift deed and the sale deed were relatives of Sundari Devi, who was also the identifier for both documents. Another ground raised was the failure to prove a spot map of the sold property and the non- examination of the map preparer, Rohit Kathuria, leading to contradictions regarding the land's location and area. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, leading to the present second appeal.

#9. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.

#10. The execution of the registered gift deed dated 26.05.2009 (Ext.DW-1/A) by the plaintiff, Sohan Singh, in favour of his son Tarsem Singh is not in dispute. The burden to prove the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation was squarely on the plaintiff. However, the plaint lacks the necessary material particulars required under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to substantiate such a plea. The mere use of the word "fraud" is insufficient, and in the absence of specific particulars, the claim that the gift deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation fails.

#11. Even if the plaintiff's assertion that the gift was made on an oral assurance from Tarsem Singh not to sell the land is accepted, such a 5 ( 2025:HHC:38836 ) condition would be void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it constitutes an absolute restraint on alienation.

#12. The plaintiff's contention that the gift is invalid for want of delivery of possession is not sustainable in law. For a gift of immovable property, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, mandates that the transfer be affected by a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. The gift deed Ext.DW-1/A fulfills these statutory requirements, having been duly registered and attested. A conjoint reading of Sections 122 and 123 makes it clear that the delivery of possession is not a sine qua non for a valid gift of immovable property once a registered instrument exists. The recital in the gift deed itself states that possession was delivered, and the testimonies of the scribe (DW-2) and the attesting witness (DW-3) confirm its due execution and registration. Therefore, the gift deed is valid and complete.

#13. Regarding the application of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while the gift was executed after the Act came into force, Section 23 of the Act is not attracted. The said section deems a transfer voidable only if it was made on the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities, and such a condition is reflected in the transaction. The gift deed Ext.DW-1/A contains no such express or implied condition regarding the maintenance of the plaintiff. The recitals indicate the gift was made out of love and affection.

#14. Consequently, the gift deed dated 26.05.2009 is held to be legal, valid, and not the result of fraud or misrepresentation. As Tarsem 6 ( 2025:HHC:38836 ) Singh became the absolute owner of the suit property, he was competent to transfer it. The subsequent sale deed dated 13.07.2009 (Ext.DW-1/B) executed by Tarsem Singh in favour of defendant no. 5, Sundari Devi, has been proved through the testimony of the scribe (DW-4) and an attesting witness (DW-7). The defendant no. 5 is established to be a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, and the sale deed is thus valid. Since the plaintiff has failed to establish any right, title, or interest in the suit property after the valid gift, he is a stranger to the title and is not entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are affirmed.

#15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. November 18, 2025 (KS) Judge (Bipin Chander Negi)