\\\

TEAM CODE:
-NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT028
COURT COMPETITION-

SPEAKER NO. 1: SHEETANSHU

SINGH (2019 BALLB 03)
SPEAKER NO. 2 : KRATIK
BARODIYA (2019 BALLB 98)

BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT OF FATEHPUR

SIKRI

CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVILL APPEALNO. OF2021

UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

LALARAM SURAJMAL…………………………………….…..PETITIONER
VERSUS
SEEMA AND ORS……….…………….………………………………RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF CIVIL COURT OF FATEHPUR

SIKRI

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................vi

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................viii

ARGUMENT ADVANCED...........................................................................................................1

A: REVOCATION OF GIFT DEED ON THE GROUND OF BREACH OF

CONDITION ATTACHED WITH THE GIFT DEED..........................................................1

1. THAT THE CONSENT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT FREE WILL.......................................1

2. THAT THE CONDITION FOR THE GIFT DEED WAS VIOLATED.............................2

3. THE DONEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT POSSESSION OF THE

PREMISES WERE IN FACT DELIVERED..............................................................................4

3.1 THE SUIT WAS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD................................5

B: PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST SEEMA AND ANURAG AND THUS

RESTRAINING THEM FROM CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN
THE SUIT PROPERTY............................................................................................................6

1. THAT THE DAMAGE THAT WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFF WOULD

BE IMMESURABLE AND WOULD RESULT IN GRAVE INJUSTICE................................6

2. THAT ANY MONETARY COMPENSATION WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO

SUFFICE THE DAMAGES........................................................................................................7

PRAYER..........................................................................................................................................8

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S NO. ABBREVIATION FULL-FORM

01 CPC CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE

02 AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

03 SC SUPREME COURT

04 SEC. SECTION

05 & AND

06 ORS. OTHERS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abdul Rahim and ors v. SK. Abdul Zabar and ors. 2009 SCC 6 160.............................................5
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & ors. AIR 2008 SC 2033.........................6
Balbhadar Singh v. Lakshmi BaiAIR 1930 All 669........................................................................3
Gandadhara Iyer v. Kulathu Iyer Sankara Iyer AIR 1952 TC 47....................................................4
K Venkata Rao v. Sunkara Venkata Ra 1998 960 ALD 278..........................................................7
Munna Kumari v Umrao Devi and ors AIR 2006 RAJ 152............................................................1
Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranivandas Maganlal Thakker and ors [(1997) 2 SCC 255. 4
Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad AIR 1924 PC 60.......................................................................2
Someshekarrao v. K.S. Mishra AIR 1944 Nag 185.........................................................................3
Subhash Chandra v. Ganga Prasad AIR 1967 SC 878....................................................................1
Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra AIR 2001 SC 2340...........................5
Thakur Raghunathjee Maharaj v. Ramesh Chandra, AIR 2001 SC 2340.......................................2

Statutes

Law of contracts,1872.....................................................................................................................1
Limitation Act,1963.........................................................................................................................5
Transfer of Propery Act,1882..........................................................................................................1

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The prtitioners have approached the civil court of Fatehpur Sikri under section 9 of Code of Civil
Procedure 1908.

Section 9 of CPC,1908 runs

“The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of
a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

[Explanation I].- A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a
civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as
to religious rites or ceremonies.”

[Explanation ll].- For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.].

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Lala Surajmal is a well-known sweet seller in Fatehpur Sikri. His shop is well-known for
the sikripeda. He has three shops and one house. All his properties are self-acquired. His
eldest son Parag did not wish to marry. Lala Surajmal promised Parag that if he gets
married, he will gift the house to him, provided he shall be allowed to live on the ground
floor and he with his future wife will took care of him.
 Lala Surajmal executed a registered gift Deed in favour of Parag, with a condition that
the deed will come into effect when the marriage solemnizes. The condition of taking
care of Lala Surajmal does not find mention in the gift deed. The house continues to be
registered in the name of Lala Surajmal, who has been paying house tax and electricity
and water bills.

 Parag seemed unresponsive towards the question of his marriage and didn't even formally
accepted the Gift. He also did not give his assent to the condition regarding the stay of
Lala Surajmal on the ground floor. After 5 years from the date of gift deed, at the age of
42 yrs finally Parag got married. Lala Suraj mal shifted to the ground floor of the house.
After this Parag started making the payments of house tax etc. Parag died in a landslide in
51shakti peeth darshan and his wife got seriously injured.
 Seema, after the birth of her son, started snubbing Lala Surajmal; she also stopped giving
food, though Lala Surajmal continued to live on the ground floor. After few months,
Seema prevented the entry of the Lala Surajmal to the ground floor.
 Lala Surajmal now wishes to revoke the gift deed on the ground of breach of condition
attached with the gift deed. Meanwhile, Seema sold the house to Anurag and went on to
live with her parents.
 Lala Surajmal now wants to set aside the sale of the house, seeking permanent injunction
against Seema and Anurag. In addition, thereto, he also seeks possession of the house
from Anurag.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE1

WHETHER THE GIFT DEED CAN BE REVOKED ON THE GROUND OF BREACH OF

CONDITION ATTACHED WITH THE GIFT DEED?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER LALA SURAJMAL CAN SEEK PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST

SEEMA AND ANURAG?

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1: WHETHER THE GIFT DEED CAN BE REVOKED ON THE GROUND OF BREACH

OF CONDITION ATTACHED WITH THE GIFT DEED?

It is most respectfully submitted before this hon’ble court that the consent of the gift was given
without free consent and under undue influence. It is further submitted that the condition
attached with the gift deed was also violated by the defendants, so the gift deed is revocable.
Further, the petition is filed within the time period prescribed in the limitation act.

2: WHETHER LALA SURAJMAL CAN SEEK PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST

SEEMA AND ANURAG?

It is most respectfully submitted before this hon’ble court that as per Sec.38(3)(b) of The
Specific Relief Act, Sec.38(3):When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s
right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction.”The defendants
wrongfully sold the property to other person and a permanent injunction must be put upon the
defendants as any monetary compensation would not be adequate to compensate the petitioner

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS-

 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE NUMBER 1

A: REVOCATION OF GIFT DEED ON THE GROUND OF BREACH OF

CONDITION ATTACHED WITH THE GIFT DEED

1. THAT THE CONSENT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT FREE WILL

[1] It is most respectfully submitted before this hon’ble court that the consent of the gift was
given without free consent and under undue influence. It is further submitted that the
condition attached with the gift deed was also violated by the defendants, so the gift deed is
revocable. Further, the petition is filed within the time period prescribed in the limitation act.

[2] It is most humbly submitted that According to Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act,
“A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in
which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded”. In Subhash Chandra v. Ganga Prasad 1, it
was held that “The Consent should be untainted by force, fraud or undue influence”.2 Also,
According to Sec. 16 of Indian Contract act states that “a contract is said to be induced by
undue influence where the will of the party consenting is able to be dominated by the other
one due to the existence of the relation subsisting between them”.3

[3] Also, where the gift deed was executed under the undue influence it deserved to be
declared as null and void.4

[4] Now in the present case, the gift deed was vitiated by undue influence. The doner
transferred the property to his son because he was not getting married and his other younger
sons were already married.5 He transferred the gift deed, only to get his son ready for
marriage. This is itself a case of undue influence as if son have married at a right time, the
father need not to have worried about anything and he might have transferred the property to
his all sons equally.

1
Subhash Chandra v. Ganga Prasad AIR 1967 SC 878.
2
Section 126 of Transfer of Propery Act,1882.
3
Section 16 of Law of contracts,1872.
4
Munna Kumari v Umrao Devi and ors AIR 2006 RAJ 152.
5
Para 2 of Moot Problem.

1|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

[5] It is Further Submitted that in Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad 6, the stages for
consideration of undue influence were chalked out. They were-

i. Are Relations between the donor and the done such that the donee is in a position
to dominate the will of the donor.?
The Donor was the Father of the Donee.7
ii. Has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor?
Yes, the donee was the eldest son and didn’t wanted to get married, his younger
brothers were married and also the donor was dependent upon the donee as from
the facts it’s clear that the donor wanted donee and his wife to take care of him
when he gets old, donee exercised undue influence using this.
iii. If second point is proved then the onus Probandi is on the person who was in
position to dominate the will to prove that the decision was not induced by undue
influence.

[6] Further when it is found that the gift deed was accepted and acted upon and appellant
contended that gift deed was vitiated by undue influence, burden is on the appellant to
establish that gift deed was not voluntarily executed and it was vitiated by undue influence.8

[7] Now, in the present case the petitioner was unduly influenced by his eldest son, because
he was not getting married and due to this the father transferred the property to the eldest son
in order to get him married, with the condition that that Parag(eldest son) will look after him,
taking care of all his needs including food, shelter, clothing etc.

2. THAT THE CONDITION FOR THE GIFT DEED WAS VIOLATED

[8] It is most respectfully submitted that According to Sec. 126 of Transfer of property act, “
The donor and the donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does
not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked.”.9 Also, In the case
of Thakur Raghunathjee Maharaj v. Ramesh Chandra10, Hon’ble Supreme Court stated
that “even though a condition is not laid down in the Gift Deed itself, and has been provided

6
Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad AIR 1924 PC 60
7
Para 1 of moot problem.
8
Karthyayani Amma vs Dandapani Pillai, in the high court of Kerala RSA No. 176 of 2007.
9
SUPRA NOTE 2.
10
Thakur Raghunathjee Maharaj v. Ramesh Chandra, AIR 2001 SC 2340

2|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

under a mutual agreement separately but forms part of the transaction of the gift, the
condition would be valid and enforceable”.

[9] It is most humbly submitted that in the present case, the Donor and the donee had
discussed the conditions of the Gift deed, the conditions were that whenever the donee
marriages, the donor would shift to the ground floor of the property and donee and his wife
should take care of him after that. 11 From the mere reading of the condition, it is evident that
if the donee fails to take care of the donor then the gift deed would be suspended and the
donee was also aware of the condition. The donee gave implied consent by marrying and then
started paying rhe house bills and the donor shifted to the first floor of the house. The donee
also took care of the donor for 6 months which shows that he had accepted the gift deed with
the condition.12

[10] It is Further submitted that in Someshekarrao v. K.S. Mishra, 13 it was held that “a
property reverts back to the donor if a condition is not fulfilled”. In the present case, as the
donor died due to an accident, his wife was the next to kin so she was to be transferred the
gift with all the conditions. As she had fulfilled the conditions for 6 months, she was well
aware of the condition. The Condition subsequent was not fulfilled and thus the Gift deed
shall be suspended.

[11] In the decision reported as TilaBewa vs. Mana Bewa14 the law relating to revocation of gift
upon breach of condition of gift was succinctly stated “if the gift deed starts with a statement
that it is made with the object of providing for maintenance of the donor, and this statement is
followed by the operative clause,--there can be no doubt that the gift is subject ,to the liability
to maintain the donor.

[12] In support of his proposition, that the deed of gift is revocable, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relies on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Balbhadar Singh v. Lakshmi
Bai15, holding that under Hindu Law if a person makes a gift to another in expectation that the
donee will do more work in consideration of the gift, it follows that if the donee failed to do
that which it has conditioned he should do, the gift is revocable.

11
Para 3 of moot problem.
12
Para 4 of moot problem.
13
Someshekarrao v. K.S. Mishra AIR 1944 Nag 185.
14
TilaBewa vs. Mana BewaAIR 1962 Ori 130.
15
Balbhadar Singh v. Lakshmi BaiAIR 1930 All 669.

3|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

[13] Also in GandadharaIyer v. KulathuIyerSankaraIyer 16, a Division Bench of the Madras

High Court held that when there is an out-and-out transfer by way of gift followed by a
direction to the donee that it is made with the object of providing for the maintenance of the
donor, there can be no doubt that the gift is subject to the liability to maintain the donor.

[14] Now, in the present case the donor orally stipulated a condition with the gift deed, and
the gift was transferred to the done merely on the basis of that gift deed. The condition that
the donor will live in the ground floor of the house and that he will be taken care by his son
and his daughter-in-law were both fettered by the defendants. Now, in these conditions the
gift deed must be revoked on the breach of condition attached with the gift deed.

3. THE DONEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT POSSESSION OF

THE PREMISES WERE IN FACT DELIVERED
[15] To understand what constitutes a gift, the supreme court of India in the case of
NaramadabenMaganlalThakker v. PranivandasMaganlalThakker and ors17, held that a gift
means to transfer certain amount of existing property moveable or immovable , voluntarily
and without consideration by one person called the donor to another called the done and
accepted or on behalf of the donee.

[16] The supreme court by its judgment cleared the position of conditional gift by stating that
a conditional gift with no recital of acceptance and no evidence in proof of acceptance, where
possession remains with the donor as long as he is alive, does not become complete during
the lifetime of the donor. The supreme court with precision outlined that the conditions
stipulated in the deed of a gift does not make the gift invalid and such gift shall be completed
upon fulfillment of the conditions.18

[17] That the defendants have never acted upon the Gift Deed as the house continues to be
mutated in the name of the plaintiff who has been paying House Tax thereon; the electricity
and water connections of the house also continue to be in the name of the plaintiff who has
been paying bills thereof.19

16
GandadharaIyer v. KulathuIyerSankaraIyer AIR 1952 TC 47
17
NaramadabenMaganlalThakker v. PranivandasMaganlalThakker and ors[(1997) 2 SCC 255
18
Id.
19
Para 3 of moot problem.

4|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

[18] Thus, possession can be shown not only by acts of enjoyment of the land itself but also
by ascertaining as to in whom the actual control of the thing is to be attributed or the
advantages of possession are to be credited, even though some other person is in apparent
occupation of the land.20

[19] In the present case, the plaintiff was paying house tax of the bill. The connections of the
electricity bill and the water bills were in his name. 21 Further, the house was itself continues
to registered in the name of Lala Surajmali.e. plaintiff. Now, when the whole possession of
the house was in the hand of the plaintiff, and when the gift deed is revocable on the ground
of breach of condition attached with the gift deed , the done was not able to establish that
possession of the premises infact were delivered to them.

3.1 THE SUIT WAS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD

[20] The suit filed by the deceased plaintiff was well within time in view of provisions
of Article 6622 appended to Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963. Article 66 prescribes limitation
period of twelve years for suit of possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has
become entitled to possession by reason of breach of a condition to be reckoned from the date
when the condition is broken. In the instant case, the cause of action accrued nearly after 6-7
years of the gift deed. And the donor can file the suit under article 66 of limitation act on
ground of breach of condition. In said regards, counsel for the prtitioners places reliance upon
the decision of Supreme Court reported as Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj &Anr. vs. Ramesh
Chandra.23

20
Abdul Rahim and ors v. SK. Abdul Zabar and ors. 2009 SCC 6 160
21
SUPRA NOTE 19.
22
Limitation Act,1963
23
Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj &Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra AIR 2001 SC 2340 .

5|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

ISSUE NUMBER 2

B: PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST SEEMA AND ANURAG AND THUS

RESTRAINING THEM FROM CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN
THE SUIT PROPERTY

1. THAT THE DAMAGE THAT WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFF

WOULD BE IMMESURABLE AND WOULD RESULT IN GRAVE
INJUSTICE.
[21] It is most respectfully submitted before this hon’ble court that as per Sec.38(3)(b) of
The Specific Relief Act, Sec.38(3):When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the
plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction.”24

(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be
caused, by the invasion;

[22] The defendants wrongfully sold the property to other person and a permanent injunction
must be put upon the defendants as any monetary compensation would not be adequate to
compensate the petitioners.

[23] In the Present case, plaintiff is an old person having this single house 25 as his property to
live in, the respondent has forcefully sold the property, when she was not even the rightful
owner of the property.26 The Respondent violated the Right of the Plaintiff by isolating him
from his property. The Plaintiff in his old age has not got the means to sustain himself and
taking away the house would lead to him leading a life as a homeless.

[24] In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs& Ors 27 Where a plaintiff is in
lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by
the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his
possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a permanent
injunction. A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to sell the property and permanent
injunction can be levied on him.

24
Specific Relief Act,1963.
25
Para 1 of moot problem.
26
Para 9 of moot problem.
27
Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs&ors. AIR 2008 SC 2033.

6|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

[25] Now, in the present case the plaintiff had a better title over the suit property. The house
remained registered in the name of plaintiff even after the transferred gift deed. He was
paying taxes of the water and electricity bills further the gift deed was not formally accepted
by the donee.

[26] The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that permanent injunction can only be granted when no
alternative efficacious relief is available in any other usual mode or proceedings. 28 Now in the
present case, when the transferred property does not constitutes a valid gift and selling the
same property by the respondent would cause a grave damage to the petitioner and any other
remedy except permanent injunction can compensate this damage.

2. THAT ANY MONETARY COMPENSATION WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO

SUFFICE THE DAMAGES.
[27] It is most respectfully submitted that According to Sec. 38(3)(c) of The Specific Relief
Act, Sec. 38(3)(c): “where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford
adequate relief;”.29In the present case, the plaintiff is a old person and has already suffered
and is suffering currently, he is in need of a place to live, according to the Condition of the
gift deed, the respondent and her husband were supposed to take care of the plaintiff during
the later years of his age and were to also let him live in the ground floor of the house.30

[28] It is most humbly submitted that the respondent after the death of her husband has
violated the condition of the gift deed because of which the plaintiff had to suffer for quite
some time. the plaintiff was forced to go to his other son’s house in order to sustain his
dietary needs and after sometime the respondent also blocked him from entering the house.
This is a clear violation of the condition subsequent and the actions of the respondent clearly
spell out her intention to illegally isolate the plaintiff from his rights over the property.

[29] It is most reverentially submitted that the mental and physical damages suffered by the
plaintiff is immeasurable. Any order granting monetary compensation would not be enough
for the plaintiff as he is already in advanced years of his life and that he is in need of a shelter
more than any amount of money.

PRAYER
28
KVenkata Rao v. Sunkara Venkata Ra 1998 960 ALD 278.
29
SUPRA NOTE 24.
30
Para 2 of moot problem.

7|Page
 -NLIU CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, argument advanced and authorities
citied, it is most humbly prayed by the petitioners in this matter that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India maybe pleased to:

1. Declare that the transferred gift deed was void.

2. Declare a permanent injunction against the respondent and restraining them from
enjoyment of the suit property.

And to pass any such order, discretion & judgment as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall forever humbly pray.

Respectfully Submitted by,

Counsel for the Petitioners

8|Page