Property litigation has a long memory. A gift deed executed in 1956 in favour of a minor son travelled through eviction suits, first appeals and finally second appeals before the Patna High Court — where, on 23 September 2026, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri dismissed the challenge in Krishna Mohan Prasad and Another v. Ratan Lall, Second Appeal No. 262 of 2013 (with S.A. No. 261 of 2013). The judgment reaffirms two workhorse principles: registration, once proved through the statutory scheme, is not undone by suspicion; and when a parent gifts property to a minor child, acceptance of the gift is presumed.
A property history in three generations
The family’s documentary trail began in 1948, when Hira Lall — owner of self-acquired properties — executed gift deeds distributing them among family members. In 1956 he gifted a residential house by registered deed to his minor son. A stamp-duty deficiency in the deed was made good in 1958. Years later, the plaintiff’s mother inducted tenants at concessional rents; when the tenancies were terminated, the plaintiff sued for eviction. The defence mounted by the step-branch of the family attacked the root: the property was joint family property, they said; the gift deed was unregistered; and, in any event, it had been procured by undue influence over the donor.
What the High Court held
Registration proved. The Court held that “the provision of the Registration Act was duly complied with and the deed of gift was found to be registered.” The statutory machinery — including the certificates and presumptions under Sections 60 and 61, and the curative reach of Section 87 for procedural irregularities — answered the attack on the deed’s registered character.
Acceptance presumed. On the capacity question, the Court reaffirmed that a gift by a guardian-parent to a minor child is valid when accepted on the minor’s behalf, and that “where a gift is made by the parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance of the gift by the donee” — the K. Balakrishnan principle.
Appeals dismissed. With the deed standing and acceptance presumed, the eviction decrees below survived; both second appeals were dismissed.
Why the principles matter beyond this family
| Principle | Practical consequence |
|---|---|
| Gifts of immovable property require a registered instrument (Section 123, Transfer of Property Act) | Oral gift claims over immovable property fail at the threshold; conversely, a registered deed shifts the battle to execution and capacity, where presumptions assist the deed. |
| Acceptance by or on behalf of the donee during the donor’s lifetime | For minors, the guardian accepts — and a parental donor’s own position as natural guardian does not defeat the gift; beneficial gifts to minors are presumed accepted. |
| Cured stamp deficiencies do not equal non-registration | Fiscal defects have fiscal remedies; they do not convert a registered conveyance into waste paper decades later. |
| Second appeals confine themselves to substantial questions of law | Litigants attacking concurrent findings on execution and possession need a legal lever, not a louder narrative. |
The case is also a quiet lesson in record-keeping. The gift survived because its paper trail did: the registered deed, the deficiency-cure of 1958, the mutation and rent history. Families that document intra-family transfers contemporaneously spare the next generation exactly this litigation.
The takeaway
Krishna Mohan Prasad reads like a syllabus of gift law applied to one house: registration proved through the statute’s own scheme, acceptance presumed for a parental gift to a minor, undue-influence allegations tested against — and defeated by — the documentary record, and the second-appeal jurisdiction holding its narrow line. Seventy years after execution, the deed did what registered deeds are meant to do: it ended the argument.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the dispute?
Hira Lall distributed his self-acquired properties by gift deeds in 1948 and, in 1956, gifted a residential house by registered deed to his minor son — the plaintiff. Decades later, after tenancies inducted at reduced rents were terminated, the plaintiff sued for eviction. The defendants — step-brothers and their heirs — contested, alleging the property was joint family property, the deed unregistered, and the gift procured by undue influence.
How can a minor accept a gift of property?
Through acceptance on the minor’s behalf by a guardian — and where the donor is the parent, the law presumes acceptance, since the gift is for the minor’s benefit. The High Court applied this settled principle, relying on the Supreme Court’s exposition in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam (2004) that a parental gift to a child carries a presumption of acceptance by the donee.
What about the alleged registration defect?
The Court found on the record that the Registration Act’s requirements were duly complied with and the deed of gift was registered — a stamp-duty deficiency made good in 1958 did not unravel the registered character of the instrument. Sections 60, 61 and 87 of the Registration Act supply the statutory presumptions and validations relevant to such proof.
What is the scope of a second appeal in such cases?
A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. Concurrent factual findings — here, on execution, registration and the character of the property — are not reopened unless shown to be perverse or vitiated by misapplication of law. The appeals failed on precisely that discipline.