The Supreme Court of India has allowed an appeal filed by the defendants in a partition suit, setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the First Appellate Court which had disregarded a registered gift deed executed by the original plaintiff. The Division Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that once a registered gift deed executed by the plaintiff—acknowledging a prior partition—remains undisputed, the burden of proving it cannot be shifted to the defendants.
Case Background
The legal dispute arose between two branches of a family. The appellants (defendants in the original suit) are the descendants of Palat Gope, while the respondents (plaintiffs) are the descendants of his brother, Tukru Gope. The respondents initiated a civil suit alleging that no partition had taken place between the parties and sought a division of the property.
Arguments and Previous Proceedings
During the trial, the appellants relied on Exhibit D, a gift deed executed by the first plaintiff in favor of his daughter, who is now arrayed as an appellant following the original plaintiff’s death. The appellants argued that this document specifically stated that a partition had already been effected and that the property being gifted was in the donor’s exclusive possession.
The Trial Court accepted this evidence, holding that there was indeed a prior partition and that the property standing in the name of Palat Gope was his self-acquired property.
However, the First Appellate Court took a divergent view. While it confirmed that the property standing in the name of Palat Gope and the appellants constituted their self-acquired property, it refused to rely on the gift deed. The First Appellate Court reasoned that the gift deed was registered on the very next day of the filing of the suit and held that the defendants/appellants had not proved the document. Consequently, it recorded a finding that “there was no actual partition by metes and bounds” and ruled that properties not standing in Palat Gope’s name could be partitioned.
This finding was subsequently confirmed by the High Court, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court found the reasoning adopted by the subordinate courts to be legally unsustainable. The Bench observed that when the execution of a registered gift deed is not disputed by the respondents, placing the burden of proof on the appellants is erroneous.
In its order, the Court observed:
“In our considered view, the reasonings given by the First Appellate Court, as confirmed by the High Court, cannot be sustained in law. When there is a partition in fact and the same has been acknowledged by the First Appellate Court, there cannot be any decree for a fresh partition.”
Addressing the First Appellate Court’s rejection of the gift deed, the Bench termed the findings “perverse.” The Court noted:
“Admittedly, it is a registered gift deed, and the respondents have not disputed its execution. Under those circumstances, the findings of the First Appellate Court, as confirmed by the High Court, on the validity of the gift deed are nothing but perverse.”
The Court emphasized that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself, not the appellants, and it clearly mentioned the partition of the suit property. The Bench stated:
“Placing the onus on the appellants to prove the gift deed, when it is undisputed, is a registered document, and was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of one of his daughters, clearly indicating the partition and separate possession of the subject matter of the present appeal, would disentitle the respondents from getting any relief…”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 14811 of 2024. The Court set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the High Court insofar as they were against the appellants.
The Court ordered: “The suit is dismissed. No costs.”
Case Information
- Case Title: Devan Gope @ Devnandan Yadav & Ors. vs. Pavitri Devi & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14811 of 2024
- Coram: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
