High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Gift Validity Ends With Donor's Acceptance - Heirs Cannot Challenge A Donor's Withdrawn Suit Posthumously: Karnataka High Court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

Similar News