2026:JHHC:6585 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 232 of 2023 Fuleshwar Ram, aged about 73 years, Son of Late Gyani Ram, Resident of Village- Bedani Khurd, P.O. Tarhasi, P.S. Manatu, District-Palamau … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus Smt. Balmati Devi, Wife of Sri Raj Kumar Ram, Resident of Village-Bedani, Khurd, P.O. Tarhasi, P.S. Manatu, District- Palamu. … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate --- 08/12.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 07.07.2023 (Decree signed on 20.07.2023) passed by learned District Judge-II, Palamau in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 10 of 2018, affirming the Judgment dated 05.01.2018 (Decree signed on 15.01.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.84 of 2010. 3. The title suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial court and the judgment and decree passed in title suit was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the defendant is the appellant before this Court. 4. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:- A. It be declared that the plaintiff has acquired valid right, title, interest and in possession of the suit land by virtue of registered deed of gift dated 11.09.2001. B. Permanent injunction be granted against the defendant restraining him not to go over the suit land or not to make any disturbance in peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land. C. Full cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. 2026:JHHC:6585 2 D. Any other relief of reliefs for which plaintiff is entitled be granted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the gift deed executed by Chhathu Dusadh in favour of his wife namely Manmati Devi was in excess of his share. He has also submitted that the gift deed was a conditional deed and the condition of the gift deed was not satisfied and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff based on gift deed could not be decreed. Case of the plaintiff:- 6. The case of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court was that the suit land measuring an area 2.18 acre, Khata no. 20, village- Bedani, District- Palamau was recorded in the name of Pannu Dusadh, Choudhary Dusadh and Raman Dusadh having equal share as a raiyat in cadastral survey. 7. Choudhary Dusadh died leaving behind his only son Chhathu Dusadh @ Chhathu Manjhi. Chhathu Manjhi vide registered deed of gift dated 16.02.1996 transferred his land of Khata no. 20 in favour of his wife Manmati Devi who accepted the same and came in possession. The further contention of the plaintiff is that due to inadvertence the area has been inadvertently written in the deed of gift as 0.42 and 2/3 acre in place of 0.35 and 5/6 acre, consisting of 0.08 acre in plot no. 75, 0.23 ½ acre in plot no. 86 0.02 and 5/6 acre in plot no. 191 0 .01 and ½ acre in plot no. 242 of Khata no. 20. Chhathu Dusadh @ Chhathu Manjhi was in possession of the above land of Khata no. 20 measuring an area 0.35 and 5/6 acres. 8. It was further case of the plaintiff that Manmati Devi, the donee, in due course gifted the said land of Khata no. 20 vide registered deed of gift dated 11.09.2001 in favour of Balmati Devi, the plaintiff, who accepted the same and came in possession of the land in question. The plaintiff applied for mutation before the C.O, Manatu who allowed the mutation application and issued rent receipt in favour 2026:JHHC:6585 3 of the plaintiff. Against the order of mutation, the defendant took steps by filing appeal and revision and it was observed that the dispute has to be resolved through civil court. Case of the defendant:- 9. The case of the defendant before the learned trial court was that the suit land comprised of five plots of Khata no. 20, and all the three brothers had equal share in each plot. Raman Dusadh sold his entire 1/3rd share in the year 1944 vide registered deed of sale No. 295 dated 25.01.1944 to Chandrika Dusadh whereas Pannu Dusadh and Choudhary Dusadh remained in possession of their 2/3rd share jointly. Choudhary Dusadh died leaving his only son Chhathu Dusadh, whereas Pannu Dusadh died later in the year 1970 leaving behind his two daughter Suggi Kumari and Balkeshwari Devi. Balkeshwari Devi in due course sold her 1/6th share to the son of his sister Suggi Devi, the defendant, and thus the defendant was enjoying entire 1/3rd share of Pannu Dusadh. Chhathu Dusadh executed numerous sale deeds in his life and was left with no land in plot No. 75 and plot no. 242. 10. The deed of gift was obtained by the plaintiff from Manmati Devi by alluring Manmati Devi to maintain her till her life and to perform shradh after her death, but soon after execution of deed of gift the donor Manmati Devi was kicked off by the plaintiff and therefore, when the plaintiff applied for mutation, the donor Manmati Devi herself appeared before the revenue authorities and opposed the mutation application and mutation application was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2002 against which plaintiff preferred mutation appeal before L.R.D.C, Palamau, where also the donor Manmati Devi appeared, but died during the pendency of appeal and the defendant are the legal heir and successors of the donor Manmati Devi along with Mohan Dusadh the grandson of Raman Dusadh, who appeared in the appeal to represent the share of Manmati Devi and to safeguard their own interest. Despite this, the case was remitted back to the C.O vide order dated 26.10.2004 directing him to mutate the name of the plaintiff against which the defendant preferred a Revision No. 18 of 2026:JHHC:6585 4 2004 before the Addl. Collector, Palamau. A revision was also prepared being No. 64 of 2004 before the A.C, Palamau by which the order of the learned court of DCLR was set aside. Findings of this Court 11. This Court finds that it was the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff allured Manmati Devi to maintain her during her lifetime and performed her shradh after her death and got the gift deed from her, but the condition of the gift was not fulfilled. The learned trial court has framed the following issues for consideration:- i. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in the eye of law? ii. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for filing of the suit? iii. Whether the suit has been properly valued? iv. Whether the suit is bad for non-rejoinder and mis-joinder of the parties? v. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and principles of waiver stopple and acquiescence? vi. Whether the suit is barred under provision of Specific Relief Act? vii. Whether the plaintiff has got valid right, title, interest and possession of the suit land? viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or relieves as claimed for? 12. While deciding issue No. (vii), the learned trial court recorded that Exhibit-5 is Original Gift deed from which Manmati Devi got right, title and possession over the suit land and subsequently, through Exhibit- 1 the plaintiff has got right, title and possession of suit land area 35 and 5/5 decimals of Khata No.20. But as per defendant’s version that on the time of Gift deed of 1996 Chhathu Dushad was in possession of only 32 decimals of land. The learned court recorded that on perusal of record it appeared that Chhathu Dushad has 1/3 share of khata No.20 bearing different plot No. of total area 2.18 acre which was undivided. It means Chhathu Dusad has total share 72.6 decimals in different plot No. of Khata No. 20 and after considering the materials on record held that total area of land 33 ½ decimals was sold by Chhathu Dushad and Exhibit-A/4 showed that his remaining share i.e. 35 /5/6 decimals land was gifted to 2026:JHHC:6585 5 his wife and upon including all the transferred land, it was about 69 decimals which was not more than of his total share i.e. about 72 ½ decimals. The argument of the defendant that the gift deed was cancelled was also taken into consideration in the following manner: - “Learned Counsels for defendant has further argued that the gift deed No.10152 dated 11.9.2001 was canceled by the donor Manmati Devi by means of cancellation deed No. 11650, dt. 20.12.01(Ext-C) on term of non-fulfillment of condition of gift deed, therefore plaintiff has no rightful claim on the suit land. On perusal of Gift deed No. 10152 dated 11.9.2001 it apparent that there was an alluring her(donor), to maintain her till her life and shall perform her Shradh after her death etc. Now a question comes to decide that whether only on the ground of alluring, hope or wish to maintain the donor, any gift deed can be canceled or not on failure to maintain? As per the Section 126 of Transfer of Property. Act “When gift may be suspended or revoked- The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be. A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferee's for consideration without notice. “In this regard the well settled legal position based on authorities, is that a gift, subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor, can not be revoked under section 126 of the transfer of property Act for failure of the donee to maintain the donor, mere a direction in a gift deed that the donee should maintain the donor till his death will not make the gift a conditional one” Thus, from the discussion made above it is well proved that the cancellation of gift deed No.11650 dated-20.12.2001 is void and the gift deed No.10152 dated 11.09.2001 is stand valid, thereafter after plaintiff open the mutation case and pay rent to the state which is shown from Ext- 2 and Ext-2/a. It is also evident from the evidence of defendant (DW-3) that the defendant presently not in possession of suit land as he stated 2026:JHHC:6585 6 in his evidence Para 33, which shows that after the gift she come in possession. Further as regard to the possession it is settled principal of law that title follows possession and as discusses above the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his right, title and interest over the suit land and as title follows possession thus it can be said that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land and in this regard as to the possession though oral evidences has been adduced by both the sides to show their possession over the suit land denying the possession of the other but the same cannot be accepted because oral evidence cannot take place of the documentary evidence because human can lie but the document cannot. Thus from the elaborate discussion made above the plaintiff has been able to prove his right, title and interest over the suit land and also succeeded to prove that Manmati Kuer in compliance of registered Gift deed No. 1754 dated 12.02.1996 (Ext-5) came in possession of the suit land and thereafter she has executed the Gift deed No. 10152 dated-11.09.2001(Ext-1) in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff is in possession thereof and accordingly the issue No. VII is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.” 13. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the following points for determination were framed: - I. Whether suit is barred by law of limitation as alleged by the appellant. II. Whether the Chhathu Dusadh executed deed of gift in excess of his share. III. Whether the deed of gift was conditional and, if yes, the condition of gift has been violated and deed of gift became nullity for breach of condition of deed of gift. IV. Whether the suit is before the Learned Court below is bad for non-joinder of necessary party of State and A.C, Palamau. 14. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has also considered each of the points of determinations and has held that the suit was not barred by limitation while deciding point No. I and while deciding point No. II the learned court has recorded clear finding that the donor of Manmati Devi namely Chhathu Dusadh had 72.6 decimals of land out of 2.18 acre of his share and he sold altogether 33 ½ decimals of land and gifted by Exhibit-A/4 to the extent of 35 and 2026:JHHC:6585 7 5/6 decimals of land which is altogether 69 decimal of land which was less than his share and therefore, it could not be held that Chhathu Dusadh the donor of Manmati Devi transferred more land than his share and point of determination No. II has decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding the point of determination No. III, the learned 1st appellate court clearly recorded that the plaintiff has been able to prove that even if, there was a condition in a gift the same has been duly fulfilled by the plaintiff. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the deed of cancellation i.e. Exhibit-C and observed that the sale deed is unilaterally deed and a deed once executed can be cancelled or declared null and void by the court of competent jurisdiction and deed of cancellation before the Sub-Registrar has no value in the eye of law and ultimately the point of determination No. III was also decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of the learned 1st appellate court while deciding point for determination no. III are quoted as under:- “14. Point No.III:- So far the deed of gift is concerned as conditional and condition is said to be violated. The learned court below while deciding the Issue No. VII quoted the provisions of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with the provision of suspension or revocation of gift has held that a gift can be revoked or cancel if there is specific terms in the deed of gift in this regard, apart from this it is also held that under the provision of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, failure the donor to maintain the donee is a mere direction of a gift but not a condition. Apart from this while going through the evidence plaintiff/respondent witness no. 3 Raj Kumar Manjhi, who is the son of the sister of the donor Manmati Devi in his evidence has deposed that the plaintiff/respondent served well to her donor Manmati Devi till her life and she was pleased with the services rendered by the plaintiff/respondent and the Shradh Karm of Manmati Devi was done by Raj Kumar Ram husband of the plaintiff/respondent and this fact has not been disputed by the defendant/appellant during the course of cross- examination and therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove before the court below that even if, there was a 2026:JHHC:6585 8 condition in a gift the same has been fulfilled by the plaintiff/respondent. 15. 15. On the other hand, the defendant/appellant has not brought on record the order of Circle officer which is said to be opposed by the donor Manmati Kuar herself. The order of the L.R.D.C. Exhibit-3 discloses that the donor has died. 16. So far the cancellation of deed of gift by Manmati Kuar is concerned, defendant/appellant has brought on record Exhibit-C i.e the cancellation deed of gift by Manmati Kuar before the Sub-Registrar by which the deed of gift has been canceled executed in favour of Balmati Devi by the Manmati Kuar. The said deed is unilateral deed and a deed of gift once executed can be cancelled or declared null and void by the court of competent jurisdiction and deed of cancellation before the Sub-Registrar has no value in the eye of law. 17. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, the Point No. III is decided against the appellant/defendant and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.” 15. This Court has gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st appellate court and during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the matter of appreciation by the learned courts. This Court finds that both the learned courts have returned concurrent findings based on appreciation of materials on record. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 17. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 12.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:- 21st May, 2026.