Gift Deed Cannot Be Cancelled After 11 Years Merely By Alleging It Was ‘Visa-Oriented’: Gujarat High Court

“Clever Drafting Can’t Override Limitation Law—Second Appeal Is Not a ‘Third Trial on Facts’”: In a judgment that will interest property and civil litigation advocates across Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court held that a suit filed eleven years after executing a registered gift deed was squarely barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and rightly rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Justice J.C. Doshi, while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage, gave a clear message to the legal fraternity:

“Second Appeal is not a third trial on facts or one more dice in the gamble. It cannot be entertained in absence of a substantial question of law.”

The case involved a plot of land originally allotted to the plaintiff in 1995. In 2010, he executed a registered gift deed in favour of his real sister, allegedly to help her demonstrate financial soundness for her daughter’s student visa application. The plaintiff claimed that the gift was never meant to be genuine, and that possession never changed. When the sister later issued a legal notice demanding possession, the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the gift deed.

However, the High Court found the plea of a “sham” gift to be both legally untenable and hopelessly delayed, stating:

“No allegations of fraud have been pleaded. Mere later dispute or notice cannot revive a cause of action that went stale over a decade ago.”

“Registered Gift Carries Presumption of Validity—Plaintiff’s Continued Possession Doesn’t Invalidate the Gift”

The plaintiff argued that the gift deed lacked legal effect as possession was not delivered, invoking Mohammedan law and claiming that, as members of the Islamic Khoja community, the formalities of a valid gift were not completed. But the Court rejected this line of argument, holding that Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governed the transaction:

“The registered gift deed contains a covenant confirming delivery of possession. Once a gift deed complies with statutory requirements under Section 123, its validity cannot be questioned by invoking personal law.”

The Court emphasized that a registered deed of gift executed by the donor himself, containing recitals of delivery of possession and witnessed as required, holds legal sanctity. The delay of eleven years in filing suit could not be brushed aside by narrating emotional or family circumstances.

Justice Doshi observed:

“There is nothing in the plaint to suggest that the plaintiff was unaware of the gift or that it was obtained by fraud. On the contrary, the plaint admits the execution of the gift. No facts are pleaded that would delay the commencement of limitation.”

“Article 59 Prescribes Three Years—Time Begins from Execution, Not from Family Disputes or Legal Notices”

Referring to the limitation law, the Court held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies, which sets a three-year limitation for a suit seeking cancellation of a document. The Court underlined:

“The clock of limitation started ticking from 18 May 2010—the date of the registered gift deed—not from the legal notice sent by the donee in 2021.”

Rejecting the argument that cause of action arose only upon receipt of the 2021 legal notice, the Court called the assertion “artificial and an afterthought.”

Citing Supreme Court precedent in Raghvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, the Court noted:

“By clever drafting, the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within limitation. But cleverly worded pleadings cannot cure a suit that is dead on arrival.”

“Registered Gift Can’t Be Branded Sham After a Decade—Limitation Can’t Be Stretched by Familial Sympathy”

In the plaint, the plaintiff narrated a series of family tragedies—his niece’s relationship turmoil, the defendant’s husband’s illness and death, and the mother’s cancer—as circumstances that prevented him from challenging the gift earlier. The Court acknowledged the emotional background but clarified:

“While familial sympathy may explain delay, it cannot override the statutory scheme of limitation. Legal rights are not held in abeyance by sentiment.”

The Court affirmed the trial court’s and appellate court’s reasoning, stating:

“Both courts below found that the registered gift deed was voluntary, executed in accordance with law, and that the suit was filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Their concurrent findings do not raise any debatable legal issue.”

“Second Appeal Lies Only on Substantial Question of Law—High Court Not Bound to Entertain Factual Retreading”

Justice Doshi clarified:

“When facts are undisputed, execution is admitted, and law is settled, the appeal raises no substantial question. This is precisely the kind of appeal that must be rejected at admission.”

Even judgments cited by the appellant, including Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and Sri Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, were distinguished on facts and found irrelevant. The Court noted:

“No relief can be granted based on inapplicable precedents. The registered gift deed remains valid in law, and possession clause within it cannot be brushed aside by invoking a different context.”

Conclusion: Second Appeal Dismissed as Meritless—Gift Stands, Suit Barred

Ultimately, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, the rejection of plaint was valid, and the entire litigation was a misuse of legal process. The Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, and the connected civil application was disposed of.

The ruling underscores that lawyers advising clients in property and family gift disputes must factor in strict timelines under the Limitation Act and that registered documents carry weight that cannot be casually challenged after long lapses.

As Justice Doshi summed it up: “Limitation is not a matter of discretion. Once the statutory period has lapsed, the right to sue is extinguished. Courts cannot entertain resurrections based on narrative alone.”

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025