In Brief
The appellant sought to recover property via a suit based on a purported gift deed and alleged non-performance of maintenance obligations. The Trial Court and Appellate Court had concurrently found that the gift was never accepted and that the deed contained no reversion clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a High Court in Second Appeal cannot re-analyse evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact. Since the gift deed itself did not provide for reversion upon failure to pay maintenance, and subsequent documents attempting to modify the terms were unauthorised and void, no valid basis existed for recovery of possession."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.