POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

Gift Validity Ends With Donor's Acceptance - Heirs Cannot Challenge A Donor's Withdrawn Suit Posthumously: Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a suit filed by the children of a deceased donor challenging the validity of a gift deed executed by their father. The court emphasized that once the donor acknowledges the gift and subsequently withdraws any challenge to it, the question of its validity is conclusively settled. Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda presided over the case, underscoring the legal principle that the validity of a gift deed rests solely between the donor and the donee, not extending to the donor's heirs posthumously.

Facts of the Case: The dispute centered around a gift deed executed on October 16, 2012, by Gilbert Correya in favor of V. Geetha. Gilbert's sons, Johnson Correya and Jensen Correya, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the gift deed was null and void, alleging it was executed under coercion and undue influence. They also sought possession of the property and a decree of partition. However, the trial court rejected an application by Geetha to dismiss the suit, leading to the current revision petition.

Donor's Acknowledgment and Withdrawal of Suit: The High Court noted that Gilbert Correya had initially challenged the gift deed through a suit but later withdrew his claim, indicating a settlement out of court. The plaintiffs argued that their father, being unwell and under medication, was not in a rational state of mind when he withdrew the suit. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the withdrawal, once accepted by the court, is final and binding.

Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda clarified, "A gift is between the donor and the donee. If, after executing a gift deed, the donor challenges it but later withdraws the challenge, the question of validity ends with the donor's acceptance. The donor's heirs cannot reopen this issue posthumously."

The court further observed that the plaintiffs, aware of their father's withdrawal of the suit, did not contest it at the time. Therefore, they cannot now initiate a fresh suit to challenge the gift deed. This principle aims to prevent endless litigation and uphold the finality of the donor's decisions during his lifetime.

Justice Gowda remarked, "The trial court's refusal to reject the application overlooked the fundamental aspect that no cause of action existed for the plaintiffs once the donor had withdrawn his suit. The validity of the gift deed was conclusively resolved during the donor's lifetime, and his children cannot challenge it posthumously."

The Karnataka High Court's decision reinforces the legal principle that the validity of a gift deed is determined between the donor and the donee, and once resolved, it cannot be contested by the donor's heirs. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, ensuring the finality and integrity of gift transactions.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2024

MRS. GEETHA  VS MR. JOHNSON CORREYA & MR. JENSEN CORREYA

Latest Legal News