Sridhar vs N. Revanna on 11 February, 2020
indiankanoon.org/doc/99240039/
1 Users
0 Comments
12 Highlights
0 Notes
Tags
Top Highlights
no right to alienate the scheduled property
N. Revanna received the suit properties by registered gift deed
as per the gift deed defendant No.1 and his younger brothers who may be born had no right to alienate the suit schedule property.
It was pleaded that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 is void and the plaintiffs being sons of defendant No.1 and great grandsons of Muniswamappa are the absolute owners of the property.
It was pleaded that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 is void and the plaintiffs being sons of defendant No.1 and great grandsons of Muniswamappa are the absolute owners of the property.
he was in dire need of money
bona fide belief that there was no legal impediment to sell the property.
The High Court had taken the contrary view that the above condition of the gift deed was not void.
Gift was not in favour of any unborn person rather gift was in favour of N. Revanna who was a minor, five years old.
The condition was put on the donee and his younger brothers who may be born after the execution of the gift deed.
The condition put on person unborn is entirely different from execution of gift deed in favour of a person who is not born.
Thus, the gift was clearly a gift in favour of defendant No.1 and not in favour of unborn person, thus, Section 13 has no application in the facts of the present case.
Ready to highlight and find good content?
Glasp is a social web highlighter that people can highlight and organize quotes and thoughts from the web, and access other like-minded people’s learning.