Family Law

R. Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder

(2004) 1 SCC 295

Facts

R. Kuppayee and another appellant were the married daughters of Raja Gounder.
Their father executed a registered settlement deed in 1985.
He gifted them:
twelve cents of land;
together with a tiled residential house situated on it.
The joint-family holding mentioned in the document measured approximately 3.16 acres.
The deed stated that the gift was made out of natural love and affection.
Possession was delivered to the daughters.
Five years later, the father attempted to recover the property.
He alleged that:
he was addicted to alcohol;
his daughters and sons-in-law took him to the registration office;
he believed he was only signing as a witness;
the settlement deed was obtained by fraud.
He also argued that ancestral immovable property could not be gifted to daughters.

Whether a Hindu father can gift a reasonable part of ancestral immovable property to his daughters.
Whether the settlement deed had been obtained by fraud.
Who bore the burden of proving that the gift was excessive.

A coparcener ordinarily cannot gift away his undivided interest in joint-family property.
Hindu law nevertheless recognises a special power in a father to gift a reasonable portion of ancestral immovable property to a daughter:
at the time of marriage; or
even after marriage.
This power is based upon:
affection;
moral and family obligation;
the traditional duty to make provision for daughters.
The reasonableness of a gift depends upon:
the total family property;
value of the gifted property;
family status;
needs and circumstances of the daughter.
The person alleging that the gift is excessive must plead and prove that fact.

The registered document and the attesting witness supported the daughters’ version.
The witness stated that the father:
brought him to the registration office;
read the deed;
signed it knowingly.
The father’s testimony lacked credibility because he denied even signatures appearing on:
the settlement deed;
the summons;
his own vakalatnama.
He had also taken no action to cancel the deed for approximately five years, during which the daughters remained in possession.
The fraud allegation was therefore rejected.
On the property question, the Court held that ancestral character did not automatically invalidate the gift.
Twelve cents formed only a small portion of the total 3.16-acre family holding.
The presence of the family house on the gifted land was relevant but not decisive.
A house is not automatically incapable of being gifted to a daughter.
The father had not specifically pleaded or proved that:
the gift deprived the family of necessary residence;
its value was disproportionate;
the remaining property was inadequate.
The appellate courts had wrongly required the daughters to prove the total reasonableness of the gift.
The burden lay upon the person challenging it as excessive.

The settlement deed was genuine and was not obtained by fraud.
The father had authority to gift a reasonable portion of ancestral immovable property to his daughters.
The gift was upheld.
The daughters’ suit protecting their possession was decreed.
Use this case for: a Hindu father’s power to make a reasonable gift of ancestral property to his daughters.