-
by Admin
19 February 2026 4:28 AM
“No One Can Impute Confusion in Donor’s Mind When He Signed Multiple Deeds Without Protest”: Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of a gift deed executed in 1988. The plaintiffs—wife and daughters of late Ramapada Pahari—had sought cancellation of the gift deed claiming it was never acted upon and had been obtained through fraud. But the Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar found that the deed was duly executed, accepted, and acted upon during the donor’s lifetime and hence immune from challenge after his death.
The Court observed:
“Since the existence of the impugned gift deed was obviously within the knowledge of Ramapada, as he signed it and had it registered, such absence of challenge is a tell-tale proof of its valid execution.”
The dispute centered around a 1988 gift deed (Schedule D/1) by Ramapada Pahari, who allegedly gifted a self-acquired property to his brother Umapada, bypassing his wife Sumati and daughters. After Ramapada’s death in 1994, his widow and daughters filed a suit seeking declaration, partition, and cancellation of the said deed, alleging misrepresentation and that the deed had never been acted upon. The trial court dismissed the suit in 2021, prompting the present appeal.
Interestingly, the same day in 1988, multiple gift deeds were executed by various family members. While the appellants challenged two in the suit, the appeal was confined only to the D/1 Schedule deed.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court first addressed whether the gift was acted upon and accepted by the donee. The Court noted that the deed itself clearly recorded delivery of possession to Umapada and stated:
“Even without considering extrinsic evidence, it is evident from the plain language of the impugned document itself that the same was acted upon simultaneously with its execution and registration.”
It also relied on several key admissions and facts:
The deed was produced from the donee’s custody.
Plaintiff Sumati Pahari herself admitted in cross-examination:
“I have not paid khajna for the property since 1988; it was Umapada who used to pay Government rent.”
An independent witness (D.W.2) confirmed that possession was handed over to the donee on the date of execution.
The donor Ramapada lived six more years after execution and never challenged the deed.
The Court concluded:
“Nothing has been produced by the plaintiffs to show that either Ramapada or his heirs asserted ownership over the property after 1988.”
On the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation, the Court was categorical:
“Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC mandates particulars of fraud to be pleaded. The plaint contains no such pleading. Not an iota of proof was adduced.”
The appellants argued that confusion might have occurred as multiple deeds were executed the same day. But the Court dismissed this as speculative:
“The donor signed several documents on the same day in different capacities. None of these were challenged. It is irrational to selectively impute confusion or fraud to just one deed.”
The Court emphasized that unlike a will, a gift deed takes effect immediately and the donor was alive to challenge it—but never did. The bench remarked:
“A gift deed is inter vivos. The executant remains alive and can speak. The absence of challenge during his lifetime speaks volumes.”
The Calcutta High Court upheld the gift made by Ramapada to his brother, ruling that the plaintiffs' challenge decades later lacked both pleading and proof. It firmly rejected the suggestion that heirs can unseat a registered and accepted gift deed just because they feel left out.
In closing, the Court remarked: “Since the execution of the deed has been validly proved in law, we cannot look behind the deed.”
The appeal was dismissed with the decree of the Trial Court dated 4 August 2021 being affirmed.
Date of Decision: 14 May 2025
