Gift of What You Don’t Own Is No Gift in Law: Kerala High Court Declares Gift Deed as Void

“Admissions Made in Court Are the Best Proof of Title”: Kerala High Court, in a comprehensive judgment delivered by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, dismissed Regular First Appeal filed by the first defendant, confirming the decree in favour of the plaintiffs in a title and possession suit concerning immovable property. The Court sternly declared, “A person cannot gift away what he does not own,” while affirming the trial court’s declaration of plaintiffs’ title over the disputed property and injunction against the defendants. The Court also denounced the defendant’s “dishonest denial” of tenancy after decades of acknowledged occupancy.

This decision has significant implications for cases where false gift deeds are fabricated to usurp property rights, reinforcing the principle that long-standing possession and title deeds cannot be brushed aside by dubious claims.

The case arose from a suit for declaration of title and injunction by the plaintiffs over three items of land. The plaintiffs traced their ownership through a chain of sale deeds dating back to 1950, supported by tax receipts and mutation entries. The first defendant, a tenant in a shop room situated on the property, contested the suit, relying on a gift deed (No.2002/2016) executed by his father, the second defendant, claiming ownership over 10.5 cents of property overlapping with the plaintiffs’ holdings.

The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring their title and possession while rejecting the defendants’ claims as baseless. Aggrieved, the first defendant filed an appeal before the High Court.

Title and Possession - Onus Shifts Upon Establishing High Degree of Probability:

While the appellant argued that the plaintiffs did not disclose a full chain of title in their pleadings, the Court held that the production of prior title deeds, tax receipts, and mutation records sufficiently established their ownership and possession. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's principle in Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, AIR 2023 SC 379 stating:

“In a suit for title and possession, if the plaintiff succeeds in creating a high degree of probability in his favour, the burden shifts on the defendant.”

Accordingly, the burden shifted to the defendants, who failed to demonstrate valid title.

Defendants’ Title Claim Based on Invalid Gift Deed – A Non-Starter:

The Court categorically found that the predecessors of the defendants had already alienated their portions of land before the execution of the contested gift deed. Justice Pratheep Kumar noted:

“The donor himself, through Exts.A8 and A9, had admitted to having assigned the entirety of the property, leaving nothing further to gift. The gift deed executed in 2016 is legally void as the donor had no subsisting title.”

The Court further condemned the defendants for attempting to assert false ownership claims, saying:

“The attempt to create a property boundary where none existed, by using a non-existent residual title, is a textbook example of fraudulent appropriation.”

Tenancy Admission – “Best Proof” Against Ownership Claim:

Interestingly, the first defendant had earlier admitted tenancy in rent control proceedings, only to later claim ownership via gift deed. The High Court relied on judicial admissions, observing:

“Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted,”

citing Ammini Tharakan v. Lily Jacob, 2013 (4) KHC 599.

The Court concluded that the first defendant’s denial of tenancy after executing the gift deed was “dishonest and afterthought,” and his continued possession was merely as a tenant under the plaintiffs.

Commissioner Report – “Cannot Overcome Documentary Title”:

While the defendant heavily relied on a survey commission report, the Court observed:

“Where title deeds and records conclusively establish ownership, a Commissioner’s report cannot breathe life into a dead claim.”

The Court ruled that the surveyor’s demarcations could not contradict the established title based on sale deeds and long-standing tax payments.

After an exhaustive analysis of records from 1950 onwards, the Court upheld the plaintiffs’ continuous chain of title and possession. It reiterated:

“The very execution of Ext.B6 gift deed, admitting lack of possession, belies any valid claim by the defendants. Courts cannot allow such fraudulent documentation to prevail over settled ownership.”

The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, sustaining the trial court’s decision declaring the plaintiffs’ title and restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession.

This ruling reiterates a crucial legal principle that ownership flows from valid title documents and possession, not fabricated claims backed by fraudulent deeds. The Court’s stern reminder that public records, tax payments, and long-standing possession outweigh hollow claims sends a clear message against property fraud.

Justice Pratheep Kumar’s observation encapsulates the ruling’s ethos: “Where documentary title stands firm, self-serving assertions of ownership cannot sway the scales of justice.”

Date of Decision: 7th July 2025