A Hindu oral gift of immovable property cannot validly transfer title without a registered, attested instrument.

The plaintiffs claimed a one-fourth share in 2 acres 28 cents comprised in old Survey No.292B, Nallur Village. Their grandfather had purchased the share in 1922, and their father subsequently settled it upon the plaintiffs by a registered Settlement Deed dated 22 September 1947.

During re-survey, the Suit “B” Schedule Property measuring 36 cents was allegedly and erroneously included in Re-Survey No.305/6A, corresponding to old Survey No.292C, and patta was issued in the name of T. Rangasamy Chettiar. His legal heirs thereafter sold the property to the fifteenth defendant under a Sale Deed dated 29 January 1987.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had orally gifted their share to T. Rangasamy Chettiar, that the patta supported the defendants’ case, and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove possession. The First Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal and additionally held that the suit was barred by limitation.

The plaintiffs preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Whether an oral gift of immovable property between Hindus could validly transfer title, particularly where the property value was allegedly below Rs.100?

Whether an unregistered and unattested instrument, or an oral transaction, could operate to convey title to immovable property by way of gift?

Whether a plea of adverse possession could be sustained in the absence of specific pleadings setting out the necessary ingredients of adverse possession?

Whether the defendants’ alternative case that the plaintiffs’ share had been allotted to T. Rangasamy Chettiar in an oral partition could be accepted when he had no pre-existing right in the property?

Whether the suit was barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC or by limitation on account of the re-survey proceedings?

The Court applied Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that a gift of immovable property must be effected through a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses.

Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 independently makes instruments of gift of immovable property compulsorily registrable, without regard to the property’s value.

A partition can ordinarily operate only among persons possessing pre-existing rights in the property.

Revenue entries or patta do not, by themselves, confer title.

Finally, relying on *Kishundeo Rout v. Govind Rao*, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1665, the Court held that adverse possession must be specifically pleaded, put in issue, and established by cogent evidence.

The Court found that the plaintiffs’ title originated in the 1922 purchase and was subsequently confirmed through the registered Settlement Deed of 1947.

The plaintiffs’ cultivation records and kist receipts supported their possession pursuant to the settlement and oral arrangement.

The Court compared the old survey particulars with the re-survey records and found a substantial discrepancy: old Survey No.292B was short by 55 cents in the re-survey records, while Re-Survey No.305/6A contained an unexplained excess of 36 cents.

The patta entry in favour of T. Rangasamy Chettiar was therefore erroneous and could not confer title, particularly in the absence of proof that notice had been issued to the plaintiffs.

An oral gift of immovable property by Hindus was invalid under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, regardless of the property’s value.

The oral-partition theory also failed because T. Rangasamy Chettiar had no pre-existing right in the plaintiffs’ one-fourth share and therefore could not receive it through partition.

The limitation objection was rejected because the plaintiffs’ evidence showed that they became aware of the alleged re-survey error only in 1978, and there was no proof that the statutory notices under Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act had been served.

The objection under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was also rejected because the earlier plaint and decree had not been produced, leaving insufficient material to establish the bar.

It further held that adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence, which had not been done in the present case.

The re-survey patta issued in favour of T. Rangasamy Chettiar and the subsequent Sale Deed in favour of the fifteenth defendant were declared invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs.

The Second Appeal was allowed; the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were set aside.

The legal representatives of the fifteenth defendant were directed to deliver vacant possession within two months. There was no order as to costs.