Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) Determination of whether an instrument is Gift Deed or Deed of Settlement – Held, the instrument in the case is Deed of Settlement – The consideration need not always be in monetary terms and can be in other forms as well – Non-monetary consideration accepted for Deed of Settlement: Held: The High Court, while considering Second Appeal of the Respondents, reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that the deed executed in relation to the property in favour of one Govindammal was settlement deed – The High Court found that the deed in question was a gift deed and not one of settlement as the element of ‘adequate consideration’ was missing and instead, the transfer was effected out of love and affection for Govindammal – Held, the transfer of property in favour of Govindammal was in recognition of the fact that she had been taking care of the transferors and would continue to do so while also using the same to carry out charitable work – The High Court has erred in taking a constricted view of ‘consideration’, especially taking note of the fact that the settlement was between the members of a family – As such, Govindammal (now her heirs) is indeed entitled to 2/3rd share in the property, in terms of the settlement deed. [Paras 14, 15.4, 15.5, 16.4] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Power to interfere in Second Appeal limited:
Held: The jurisdiction to interfere in findings where the Courts below have been ad idem, is limited and such limitation is well expounded – Referring to Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (2007) 1 SCC 546 there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be, and they added a note of warning that no court in India has power to add to, or enlarge, the grounds specified in Section 100 – Further reference made to V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 155 & Nazir Mohammed v. J. Kamala (2020) 19 SCC 57 on the limitations of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. [Paras 16, 16.1]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Meaning of substantial question of law Reiterated:
Held: Referring to Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210, Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, it was held that a substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for the maintainability of a second appeal, shall be one which is not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent – The said substantial question of law shall not have material bearing on the decision of case – Further, a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter – Therefore, it will depend on facts of each case. [Paras 16.3]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.