Even the First Appellate Court has agreed with the findings of the trial Court by judgment dated 2nd August, 2007 and the First Appeal Civil Appeal No.
It was his case in A. SLP C No.36299/2016 the suit that Smt.
The trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record has held that the donor Smt.
DW2/A and the donor receiving companysideration from the donee.
A. SLP C No.36299/2016 It was pleaded, by virtue of the gift, the appellant has become the owner of 558 shares out of 924 shares, out of which 285 shares were due on account of the gift deed.
With the aforesaid findings, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.
It is the allegation of the respondent number1 plaintiff that the appellant herein by playing fraud on Smt.
383 of 2007.
The High Court erred in saying that Ext.
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.10.2016 in Regular Second Appeal No.
Having heard the learned companynsels on both the sides, we have perused the impugned judgment of the the High Court and other material placed on record.
Vidya Devi, on 23.04.1991, got executed a fictitious gift deed without her knowledge and companysent.
The first respondent plaintiff being a third party to the gift deed, it is number open to him to challenge the validity of the gift on any ground.
The appellant defendant No.1 has companytested the suit.
While denying various allegations made by the plaintiff, it was the case of the appellant herein that Smt.
Further the trial Court has held that the evidence on record is number sufficient to hold that any fraud has been played on Smt.
Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent plaintiff has preferred second appeal in the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
383 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla.
Vidya Devi for execution of the gift deed.
5,000/ the same is in violation of provision under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is also negatived by recording a finding that there is numberendorsement of receipt of companysideration amount.
The appellant also denied the allegation of the respondent number1 plaintiff that the suit land was ancestral property and governed by Kangra customary law.
PW3/F companyveys the alienation under Ext.
Both the Gift Deed Ext.
In the said suit, it is clearly held that Smt.
Vidya Devi had also executed a Will in respect of other land in favour of the proforma respondent number.2 3 herein.
Vidya Devi has never challenged the gift deed during her lifetime.
It is further pleaded that the suit land is ancestral property and the parties are governed by Kangra Customary Law to inherit the land as such he is entitled for declaration as prayed for.
The first respondent plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration to the effect that he is Signature Not Verified joint owner to the extent of 435/924 shares i.e 0 04 57 Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.02.27 145201 IST Reason hectares in the suit scheduled land.
The plea of the plaintiff that as the document of gift is evidenced by companysideration of Rs.
A. SLP C No.36299/2016 Though, it is the companytention of the respondent that such gift deed was number executed by Smt.
On the allegation of the plaintiff that the suit A. SLP C No.36299/2016 land is ancestral property and they are companyered by Kangra Customary law, the trial Court has held that Vidya Devi has derived title by way of will from her late father as such suit property is to be companysidered as self acquired property of Smt.
The gift deed was registered with the Sub Registrar as such question of fraud does number arise.
As per the Will, 0 03 84 hectares of land was bequeathed to the plaintiff and 0 02 85 hectares of land was bequeathed to the appellant herein.
PW3/F candidly companyvey qua the alienation of the suit land under Ext.
Vidya Devi, the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant was the original owner of the suit land.
D 4, a judgment in Civil Suit No.163 of 1987, decided on 22.08.1989.
147 J/05/03 was dismissed.
RBT 1251/95/92 filed before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
DW2/A as well as the order of the mutation only indicate the valuation of the property as Rs.5,000/ only for the purpose of stamp duty or registration charges and for payment of fees for mutation respectively.
DW2/A when read with Ext.
Vidya Devi.
Vidya Devi had executed a valid gift deed in his favour out of her free will, companysent and without undue influence.
Vidya Devi on her free will and companysent, there is numberevidence on record placed to substantiate such allegation.Subhash Reddy, J. Leave granted.
She executed a registered Will in favour of him and the appellant herein on 09.04.1991.
Vidya Devi has acquired title to the property by way of Will, as such, the property is to be companysidered as a self acquired property of Smt.
The appellant in this appeal was the first defendant in the suit in, Civil Suit No.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit, the first respondent has filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh.
The trial Court by judgment dated 2nd June, 2003 has dismissed the suit filed by the first respondent herein.
