Deed of Gift - absence of acceptance

-

 T.H.BATHDRA & ANOTHER VS. PACKIYAWATHI WIFE OF SITHAMPALAMPILLAI


C.A. 178/98 (F).  D.C. Trincomalee 261/93/RE


T.H.Bathdra

No.316,

North Cost Road,

Trincomalee


T.H.Geetha Kanthi

No.316,

North Cost Road,

Trincomalee


Defendant-Appellants


Packiyawathi wife of Sithampalampillai,

No.22, Fourth Crosst Street

Trincomalee


Plaintiff-Respondent.


Nawagamuwage Chitra Iranganie

Mallika of Rerukana temple, Rerukana,

Bandaragama and others


DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS


BEFORE: A W A SALAM, J


Added Defendant-Appellant absent and unrepresented. Plaintiff-Respondent is absent but represented by K.V.S. Ganesharajah.


ARGUED AND DECIDED ON : 13.06.2012.


A.W.A. Salam, J.


This appeal arises from the judgment dated 9.12.97 granting relief to the plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint. The background to the appeal is that the plaintiff filed an action against the defendant for a declaration that he is the owner of the property described in the schedule to the plaint and for ejectment. On a chain of title set out in the plaint, he claimed ownership to the property in suit. The defendant contested the case mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs had no title to the property inasmuch as the revocation of the gift made to one Arumugam  Tharumalingam is not valid in law.


At the conclusion of the trial, the learned district judge held that the deed in question is not a valid deed as the donee has failed to subscribe to the deed of gift indicating acceptance of the gift. On a perusal of the deed of gift in question, it is quite clear that the said Arumugam Tharumalingam has not accepted the gift and therefore it cannot constitute a valid gift. Hence, the title of the plaintiff is flawless and cannot be attacked by the contesting defendants.


In any event, the defendant has come into the land in question as a licensee and therefore in law she is estopped from disputing the title of the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the above matters, the learned district judge cannot be faulted for granting relief to the plaintiff. For the reasons enumerated this appeal should fail and therefore is dismissed without costs. 


Judge of the Court of Appeal


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more