Can An Oral Gift Of Immovable Property Confer Ownership Rights? Delhi High Court Answers
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that ownership rights in an immovable property cannot be transferred through an oral gift, holding that a valid gift of immovable property can be effected only through a registered instrument executed in accordance with law.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed,
“...the law is well settled that a gift of immovable property can be effected only in writing by way of a registered document. A bare perusal of Section 1231 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes it evident that a gift of immovable property cannot pass any title to the donee if it is not registered and signed by or on behalf of the donor, as well as attested by at least two witnesses, which means that no oral gift could be made.”
The bench thus rejected the claim that a portion of the disputed property had been orally gifted by the original owner to one of his sons.
Reliance was placed on Gomtibai vs. Mattulal, (1996) where the Supreme Court held that the gift of immovable property should be made only for transferring the right, title and interest by the donor to the donee by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and must be attested by at least two witnesses.
In the present case, the suit was filed seeking partition of the property left behind by Plaintiff's father.
Plaintiff contended that after the death of his parents, the property devolved upon the six children, each inheriting a one-sixth share. He further relied on relinquishment deeds executed by his four sisters in his favour to claim ownership to the extent of 5/6th share in the property.
The legal representatives of the Plaintiff's deceased brother resisted the suit by asserting that the property had been orally partitioned during the father's lifetime. They also claimed that the first and second floors had been gifted by the father to the now deceased son.
After examining the evidence, the Court found that the defendants had failed to establish either the alleged oral partition or the plea of gift.
“apart from the self-serving statements of DW-1 and DW-2 in their examination-inchief, which also could not withstand the cross-examination, there is not an iota of evidence brought on record by the defendant nos. 1 to 6 to establish the factum of alleged oral partition of the suit property having taken place,” the Court observed.
It noted that the witnesses produced by the legal representatives had no personal knowledge of the alleged oral partition and admitted during cross-examination that they possessed no documentary proof to support the claim.
As such, holding that Plaintiff's father had died intestate and that the relinquishment deeds executed by the sisters were valid, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had acquired a 5/6th share in the property, while the legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Gupta collectively held the remaining 1/6th share.
Accordingly, the Court passed a preliminary decree of partition and appointed a Local Commissioner to examine whether the property could be partitioned by metes and bounds.
Appearance: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Ms. Shambhavi Kala, Advs. for Plaintiff; Mr. Mannu Dayma, Mr. Pranav Bhatt and Mr. Anukool Chawla, Advs. for D-1 to D-6. Mr. Anand Varma and Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advs. for D-7/IDBI Bank.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. Laxmi Devi & Ors.
Case no.: CS(OS) 447/2021