Property Law Case: Minbahadur Basnet vs. Bedkumari Basnet, NKP 2059 B.S, D.N. 7087
Case: Bakaspatra Badar Bibad (Dispute Regarding Cancellation of Gift Deed)
Plaintiff: Bed Kumari Basnet and others
Defendant: Min Bahadur Basnet
Decision No: 7087
This case is related to the cancellation of a gift deed (Bakaspatra)
Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Bed Kumari Basnet, and her sons were living jointly with Tej Bahadur Basnet, who was her husband and the father of the children. No partition had taken place among them. Tej Bahadur Basnet transferred two plots of land in Dang District to his elder brother, Min Bahadur Basnet, through a registered gift deed in 2045 B.S. The plaintiffs claimed that the land was ancestral and joint family property in which they also had a share. According to them, Tej Bahadur executed the gift deed without the consent of his wife and minor sons and under the influence of his elder brother. They further argued that the land was highly valuable, but a very low value was shown in the deed. Therefore, they requested the court to cancel the gift deed to the extent of their three-fourth share. The defendant, Min Bahadur Basnet, argued that the land had been purchased by Tej Bahadur himself through a sale deed during his own lifetime. He claimed that the property was self-acquired property which Tej Bahadur was free to transfer as he wished. He also stated that he had financially supported his younger brother in the past, and out of goodwill and gratitude, Tej Bahadur gifted the land to him.
Thus, the main dispute was whether the property was joint family property or Tej Bahadur’s self-acquired property, and whether consent of the wife and children was necessary before executing the gift deed.
Legal Issue:
- What is meant by “property acquired during one’s own lifetime,” and whether such property can be transferred freely by the owner without consent from other family members.
- Whether a gift deed of joint family property could be valid without the consent of the wife and children who also had partition rights in the property.
- Whether the limitation period under Chapter on Transactions (Len-den Byabahar) No. 10 or the limitation period under Chapter on Gift (Dan Bakas) No. 5 would apply in this case.
- Whether consent of minor sons was legally required in such transactions.
Different Levels of Court Decision:
Dang Deukhuri District Court:
District Court held that the disputed land was joint family property in which the plaintiffs also had a share. The court stated that under Dan Bakas No. 1, a gift deed of joint property cannot be executed without the consent or witness of the coparceners. Since Tej Bahadur had transferred the property without the consent of his wife and sons, the court cancelled the gift deed to the extent of the plaintiffs’ three-fourth share.
Appellate Court, Nepalgunj:
Appellate Court upheld the decision of the District Court. It agreed that the plaintiffs had partition rights in the disputed property and that consent of the coparceners was necessary before making a gift deed. The court found that the plaintiffs were neither witnesses nor had they given consent to the transaction. Therefore, the gift deed was not legally valid regarding the plaintiffs’ share.
Supreme Court (Full Bench):
Full Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the disputed property had been purchased by Tej Bahadur through a registered sale deed during his own lifetime. Therefore, it was property acquired during his own lifetime. The Court interpreted Partition Chapter No. 19(2) to mean that a person may freely transfer property acquired during his own lifetime. Thus, Tej Bahadur was not legally required to obtain consent from his wife and children before gifting the property to his brother. The Court also clarified that the limitation period applicable in this case was under Dan Bakas No. 5, not under Len-den Byabahar No. 10.
Dissenting opinion:
However, some judges gave dissenting opinions stating that the property was joint family property and consent of wife and children was necessary.
Principle Established:
- The property acquired during a person’s own lifetime may be transferred freely by that person, and consent of the wife, children, or other coparceners is not necessary in such cases.
- The Court also clarified that disputes relating to gift deeds are governed by the limitation period under Dan Bakas No. 5, not automatically by Len-den Byabahar No. 10.
- The Court distinguished between “private property” under Partition Chapter No. 18 and “property acquired during one’s own lifetime” under Partition Chapter No. 19, and recognized the owner’s right to transfer such property freely.
