Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh vs Pargat Singh And Others on 13 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035557
RSA-733-1994 2024:PHHC:035557
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103
RSA-733-1994
Date of decision: 13.03.2024
JASWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ..Appellant
Versus
PARGAT SINGH AND OTHERS ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate
for respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. In this regular second appeal, the defendant assails the
correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below
while decreeing plaintiffs suit for grant of decree of possession. In
substance, the dispute is with regard to the validation of gift deed executed
by Sh. Lohru @ Gurdial in favour of Sh. Jaswant Singh. The plaintiffs are
sons of Sh. Kartar Singh. Their grand-father Sh. Narain Singh and father of
Sh. Lohru @ Gurdial, Sh. Kahan Singh were brothers. The exact relationship
between Sh. Jaswant Singh and Sh. Lohru @ Gurdial Singh is not
established. The execution of the gift deed has been proved by examining
DW-1 Sh. Sharanjit Singh, Clerk from the office of Deputy Commissioner,
who has brought the record from the office of the Registrar, DW-2 Sh.
Girdhari Lal Sharma, Scribe, has also been examined, DW-3 Sh. Joginder
Singh, Nambardar, the attesting witness of the gift deed, has been examined.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035557
RSA-733-1994 2024:PHHC:035557
2. Both the Courts below have found that the execution of the gift
deed is proved, however, the plaintiffs suit has been decreed on the ground
that acceptance of gift deed is not proved on the part of defendant. It has
been held that the defendant has not signed in token of acceptance of the gift
deed.
3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with the photocopy of the record, which has been produced by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
4. On perusal of the gift deed, it is evident that the donor namely
Sh. Lohru @ Gurdial Singh was pleased with the services of the donee (Sh.
Jaswant Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh). There is a recital in the gift deed
that Sh. Jaswant Singh is his grand-son from brotherhood. He has delivered
possession of the suit property to Sh. Jaswant Singh. It is also recited that
Sh. Jaswant Singh has become owner of the gifted suit land and the other
heirs of the donor will have no right in the land, which is part of the gift
deed. It is also recited that the donee accepts the gift.
5. PW-2 Sh. Gurmail Singh in his cross-examination admits that
Sh. Jaswant Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh (donee) is in possession of the
property. He denied suggestion that Sh. Jaswant Singh was cultivating the
land even during the lifetime of Sh. Lohru. Plaintiff No.2 has stated that
defendant took forcible possession of the land after dismissal of their suit. It
has come on record that previously the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.4 of
05.01.1985, for grant of decree of injunction, which was dismissed on
09.01.1986.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035557
RSA-733-1994 2024:PHHC:035557
6. In these circumstances, the question is 'whether there is any
specific form of acceptance of the gift?'. The Supreme Court in Asokan Vs.
Lakshmikutty & others, (2007) 13 SCC 210, held that to prove acceptance
of the gift, there may be various means including handing over document to
donee or delivery of possession of the gifted property or even a silence may
some time indicate acceptance. It is not necessary to prove any overt act in
respect thereof.
7. In this case, there is specific recital in the gift deed that the
donee has accepted the gift. It is also recited that the possession has also
been delivered to the donee. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession,
therefore, the possession of donee is not in dispute. The plaintiffs have failed
to prove that the donee did not enter possession on the exclusion of the gift
deed.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that on the execution of the gift deed, the gift was complete
and no separate acceptance of gift was necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by
the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs shall stand
dismissed.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 13th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
