MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Gift Validity Ends With Donor's Acceptance - Heirs Cannot Challenge A Donor's Withdrawn Suit Posthumously: Karnataka High Court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