Revocation of a registered gift was sought for fraud, undue influence and breach of conditions. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the pleadings insufficient, the residence condition unenforceable by revocation absent an express stipulation, and the onward-transfer restriction void. Dismissal of the suit without trial was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on : August 06, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : September 02, 2015
SEHDEV SINGH VERMA .....Appellant Represented by: Mr.R.M.Bagai, Advocate with Ms.Damini Khaira, Advocate
versus
J P S VERMA & ANR. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ved Prakash Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Mayank Garg and Ms.Kanika Sabharwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Verma (Original Plaintiff) I
I I J.P.S. Verma Sehdav Verma Son/Defendant No.1 (Son)/Appellant I
I I Om Wati Verma Vikas Verma (Wife)/Defendant No.2 Son
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 1 of 31
(ii) that the Gift Deed was subject to the conditions (a) that the plaintiff shall be entitled, throughout his life, to live in the front drawing room on the ground floor; and, (b) that the said house shall be given to the defendants‟ son Mr.Vikas Verma after his marriage;
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 2 of 31
(iii) that the defendants had emotionally blackmailed the deceased plaintiffs into executing the Gift Deed by representing that they did not have any immovable property and that their status in life will rise in society if they became owners of the ground floor and the same will also facilitate them in marrying their daughter after a few years;
(iv) that the defendants had also promised that they will look after the plaintiff very well, taking care of all his needs including food, shelter, clothing etc.;
(v) that after the execution of the Gift Deed, the defendants initially treated the plaintiff nicely as they were doing prior to the execution of the Gift Deed “but after few months” they started ignoring the plaintiff; the treatment meted out by the defendants to the plaintiff worsened “within a few months” and the defendants stopped giving food though the plaintiff continued to live in the front drawing room of the ground floor, compelling the plaintiff to go for food to the first floor of the adjoining house of his another son;
(vi) that in the last week of September, 2003 the defendants also prevented the entry of the plaintiff to the ground floor; a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff with the local Police Station, but no action was taken thereon; the plaintiff then filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1188/2003 in this Court, vide order dated 10th September, 2004 wherein the local Police Station was directed to register a criminal case against the defendants; FIR No.488/2004 of offences under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the defendants;
(vii) that the Gift Deed is nullity in the eyes of law because in pith and substance the said Gift Deed was made in favor of Mr.Vikas Verma but the same has not been accepted by him and without which acceptance the Gift Deed is null and void;
(viii) 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;
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 3 of 31
(ix) that the Gift Deed was conditional with the plaintiff having the absolute right to use the front room throughout his life and the defendants giving the said ground floor to their son Mr. Vikas Verma after his marriage and is liable to be set aside on this ground also;
(x) that the defendants had committed breach of the conditions on which the Gift Deed was made and the Gift Deed is liable to be set aside on this ground also; and,
(xi) that the plaintiff had revoked the Gift Deed vide notice dated 1st June, 2007.” (Emphasis Supplied)
“(a) that the suit was barred by time;
(b) no particulars of any fraud or undue influence has been pleaded; the representations alleged to have been made by the defendants to the plaintiff do not make out a case of undue influence or fraud;
(c) that the plaintiff executed the Gift Deed voluntarily and without any undue influence or fraud as is evident from Clause 4-A thereof as under:-
“4-A. With condition that Donor will reside in front (Drawing) room throughout his life and Donee will give the house to her son Vikas Verma after his marriage. written by the plaintiff in his own hand
(d) that the suit had been filed at the instigation of another son of the plaintiff who is a Police Officer in the Delhi Police;
(e) that prior to the year 2004, the MCD having jurisdiction over the property had no policy for floor-wise mutation in respect of properties built on leasehold land;
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 4 of 31
(f) that the defendant no.2 had been paying the Property Tax with respect to the ground floor;
(g) that the plaintiff, in January, 1986 had executed a Will whereunder he had bequeathed the ground floor of the property to the defendant no.1 and the first floor to his other son and second floor to his wife; that after the death of the wife of the plaintiff, the plaintiff desired to in his lifetime only give the ground floor to the defendant no.1 and the first and second floors of the house to his other son; that since the defendant no.1 was also an allottee of a residential flat by DDA, the Gift Deed, the Gift Deed of the ground floor was executed in the name of the wife of the defendant no.1;
(h) that there were no differences between the plaintiff and the defendants till the year 2003 when the other son of the plaintiff instigated the plaintiff, so as to take the entire property;
(i) that the plaintiff in his complaint dated 27th September, 2003 to the Police against the defendants did not state that the defendants had got the Gift Deed executed fraudulently or exercising undue influence;
(j) denying that the defendants had treated the plaintiff shabbily;
(k) that the FIR lodged against the defendants was quashed by this Court vide order dated 12th December, 2007;
(l) denying that the gift was intended in favor of Mr. Vikas Verma;
(m) that the pleas taken in the plaint were barred by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;
(n) that though the electricity and water meters of the ground floor remained in the name of the plaintiff but the charges thereof were being paid by the defendants;
(o) denying that the Gift Deed was conditional; and,
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 5 of 31
(p) that Mr. Vikas Verma son of the defendants was at that time still unmarried.”
“AND WHEREAS the above named Donee is the real daughter-inlaw and is the wife of Shri J.P.S. Verma, the real son who is in blood relation of the Donor. AND WHEREAS DONOR AND DONEE ARE LIVING TOGETHER in the property in question since last about 20 years and the Donee has been serving the Donor as a Hindu devoted daughter-in-law.
AND WHEREAS the Donor out of natural love and affection for the above named Donee has already declared and made an Gift of the ground floor portion consisting of three rooms, one kitchen, two toilets, one bath room and two stores more fully shown and described in the site plan annexed with this deed.
AND WHEREAS the Donor has made the instant gift to Donee according to his own free and sweet Will and without any fraud, undue influence or threat/pressure from any corner of anybody who so ever.
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES AS UNDER:-
1. That the Donor in consideration of his natural love and affection for the above named Donee has voluntarily and out of his own free will, without coercion, undue influence from
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 6 of 31
anybody whatsoever do hereby gift, give, convey, transfer unto the above named Donee Mrs. Om Wati Verma wife of J.P.S. Verma, resident of A-2/163, Safdar Jang Enclave, (Ground Floor) New Delhi, ground floor portion morefully shown in the site plan annexed with this deed forming part of property no. A- 2/163, Safdar Jang Enclave, New Delhi measuring 125 sq. yards.
2. That the Donor has delivered the physical possession of above mentioned ground floor portion of property No. A-2/163, Safdar Jang Enclave, New Delhi to the Donee on the spot, the Donee hereby acknowledge having taken possession of the same from the Donor.
3. That the gift is absolute and irrevocable, the Donor shall have no right or title over the gifted property and ceased to have any right over the ground floor portion which he has gifted to Donee.
4. That the Donee shall be at liberty to enjoy this gifted property on her own will and to deal with the same independently. 4-A. With the condition that Donor will reside in front (Drawing) room throughout his life and Donee will give the house to her son Vikas Verma after his marriage.
5. That the Donor, his heirs, besides the Donee have left no claim, interest or title in the donated property to the Donee, and Donee has become the actual owner of the said donated property.
6. That the Donee shall get mutated the above mentioned donated property in the concerned Department on the basis of this Gift Deed in the name of Donee.
7. That all the costs of mutation and registration of the Gift Deed shall be borne and paid by the Donor.” (Emphasis Supplied)
basis that during his lifetime the plaintiff had executed the Will dated 25 June, 2007 bequeathing the suit property in his favor.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 8 of 31
daughter-in-law defendant No.2 but for declaration of the same as null and void pm the ground of the defendants having got the same executed from the deceased plaintiff by exercising undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation and also on the ground that the Gift Deed is a nullity because the gift in pith and substance was in favor of Mr. Vikas Verma being the son of the two defendants and who had not accepted the gift.
2. The plaintiff who had instituted the suit has since died and his another son was substituted in his place.
3. Arguments were commenced by the counsel for the plaintiff on the application of the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 and on the application of the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendants are seeking rejection on the ground of the plaint being barred by time.
4. It has however being enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff as to what are the legal legs for the claim in the suit to stand on; on what basis, the deceased plaintiff having made the gift, is entitled to have the same cancelled on the ground of the defendants being in breach of clause 4A thereof which made the gift conditional upon the plaintiff‟s right to reside in the front drawing room throughout his lifetime. It has further being enquired, as to how the right, even if any of the plaintiff to reside in the front drawing room of the said ground floor survives the plaintiff. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiff has also been drawn to Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
5. The counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to address on all the said aspects.
6. The counsel for the defendants to also come prepared on the same.
7. List on 21st March, 2014.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 9 of 31
8. Test. Case No.29/2011 which is also listed along with this suit is separated and be listed as per the dates fixed therein.”
a) No case has been made out in the plaint that the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 was executed by the deceased plaintiff on account of fraud/undue influence being played/exercised by the defendants. b) The plea of the deceased plaintiff that the consideration (reason) of execution of Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 was the promise made by the defendants to look after the plaintiff and thus played a fraud as they i.e. the defendants had no intention of performing said promise is barred in view of the fact that no prescription is contained in the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 that the deceased plaintiff is gifting the suit property to defendant No.2 on the promise of defendant No.2 to look after the plaintiff and prescription contained in Section 92 of Evidence Act, 1872 that no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms. Rather, from a reading of Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 it appears that reason which led the plaintiff to gift the suit property to defendant No.2 was the past services rendered by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. c) There is no plea in the plaint of the defendants or any of them being in a position to dominate the will of the deceased plaintiff or having used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the deceased plaintiff. Mere plea of undue influence, without pleading the ingredients thereof, is of no avail.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 10 of 31
d) The case sought to be set up by the deceased plaintiff that the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 was executed by him on account of fraud/undue influence being played/exercised by the defendants is in any case barred by time in view of averments contained in the plaint that the deceased plaintiff “within a few months” of execution of Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 became aware of the fraud/misrepresentation allegedly played/exercised by the defendants and provisions of Articles 58 and 59 of Schedule appended to Limitation Act, 1963. Article 58 provides for three years limitation period for a suit to obtain any declaration (not covered by Articles 56 and 57) to be reckoned from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Article 59 provides for three years limitation period for a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for rescission of a contract to be reckoned from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first becomes known to him.
e) Article 66 of the Schedule appended to Limitation Act, 1963 relied upon by the plaintiff has no application in the present case for the reason Article 66 applies to such suits where claim is based upon revocation of gift deed on ground of breach of condition of conditional gift, which is not the position in the instant case. The dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2006) 5 SCC 353 Prem Singh vs. Birbal is that where a suit is filed for cancellation of a transaction on the ground of coercion, undue influence or fraud, Article 59 would apply. f) The fact that the deceased plaintiff had written clause 4-A of the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 in his own handwriting negates the case sought to be made by the deceased plaintiff that the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 was executed by him on account of fraud/undue influence being played/exercised by the defendants.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 11 of 31
g) Clause 4-A of the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 can by no stretch of imagination be read/interpreted to mean that in pith and substance the gift of suit property was in favor of Mr.Vikas Verma, son of defendants. In fact, had the gift been meant for Mr.Vikas Verma the occasion for stipulating in the Gift Deed that the defendant No.2 will give the suit property to Vikas Verma after his marriage would not have arisen.
h) Even if it were to be held that the gift in favor of defendant No.2 was conditional to the defendant No.2 giving the suit property to her son after his marriage, there had been no breach of the said condition on the dates of purported revocation of the gift or institution of the suit inasmuch as son of defendant No.2 was not married on said dates. i) The condition contained in clause 4-A of the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 that defendant No.2 shall give the house to her son Vikas Verma after his marriage is of no avail to the plaintiff in view of prescription contained in Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that where on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favor of transferee, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by the transferee in a particular manner, the transferee is entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there was no such direction.
j) Non mutation of the name of the transferee (defendant No.2) in the Municipal records for the purpose of House Tax cannot divest transferee (defendant No.2) of the title which otherwise stands transferred and vested in the transferee. It is settled position in law that mutation entries do not confer or divest a title. Likewise, payments of House Tax and electricity and water charges by the plaintiff in respect of suit property, if any, even after execution of Gift Deed are of no avail to the plaintiff for such payments do not confer or divest title. In this view of the matter, no
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 12 of 31
useful purpose would be served in setting the suit on trial on the aspect of payments of House Tax and electricity and water charges by the deceased plaintiff in respect of the suit property even after execution of Gift Deed for the reason the same even if proved would not negate the gift. The Courts are not to mechanically set such suits to trial whose outcome is not dependent upon any factual adjudication.
k) Even if Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 which prescribe that deceased plaintiff had delivered the physical possession of the suit property to defendant No.2 and that the defendant No.2 had accepted the same; gift made by the plaintiff is absolute and irrevocable and plaintiff is left with no right or title over the gifted property and defendant No.2 shall be at liberty to enjoy the gifted property and to deal with the same independently are held to be inconsistent/repugnant to clause 4-A of the deed prescribing that defendant No.2 shall reside in the front drawing room of the suit property throughout his lifetime they i.e. clauses 2, 3 and 4 shall prevail over clause 4-A in view of settled legal position that in the event of inconsistency between two clauses in a deed, earlier/first of the two inconsistent clause shall prevail. Alternatively, even if rule of harmonious construction were to be applied, the only inference/conclusion which would emerge is that the residence of Donor (deceased plaintiff) in the front drawing room of the suit property would be as licensee or with the permission of Donee (defendant No.2), with the Donee (defendant No.2) having jural and physical possession of the said front drawing room given to her under the Gift Deed and the Donor (deceased plaintiff) having merely a right of residence in lifetime therein. Such right of residence of the Donor (deceased plaintiff) in the suit property cannot be in negation
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 13 of 31
of the essential requirement of delivery of possession of gifted property under Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act.
l) The argument advanced by the deceased plaintiff that Donor i.e. the deceased plaintiff had not delivered the possession of suit property to Donee i.e. defendant No.2 and thus gift of suit property made to defendant No.2 was incomplete is misconceived for the reason the delivery of possession of gifted property is not necessary to complete the gift of an immovable property.
m) None of the conditions/circumstances prescribed in Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act for suspension/revocation of a gift are fulfilled in the present case. It is neither the case of the deceased plaintiff that the Donor (deceased plaintiff) and Donee (defendant No.2) had agreed that on the happening of any specified event the Donor (deceased plaintiff) may revoke the gift nor any such term is found in the Gift Deed.
A The gift of suit property by the deceased plaintiff to defendant No.2 was conditional. Clause 4-A of the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 categorically prescribes that the deceased plaintiff had gifted the suit property with the condition that „donor (deceased plaintiff) will reside in front (drawing) room throughout his life‟. Admittedly, the defendants had prevented the deceased plaintiff from residing in the front (drawing) room in the suit property thereby committing breach of condition of gift and consequently the gift in question became ineffective and inoperative. In
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 14 of 31
said regards, counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court reported as (1997) 2 SCC 225 Narmadaben Maganlal Thakker vs. Prajivandas Maganlal Thakker & Ors.
B The prescription contained in clause 4-A of Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 that „Donee (defendant No.2) will give the house to her son Vikas Verma after his marriage‟ clearly shows that in pith and substance the gift was made in favor of Mr.Vikas Verma, son of defendants. Admittedly, Mr.Vikas Verma who was married on September 23, 2009 never accepted the gift in question during the lifetime of Donor i.e. deceased plaintiff. A gift is completed upon execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of property. Since Mr.Vikas Verma never accepted the gift in question during the lifetime of deceased plaintiff the same i.e. gift never got complete, particularly when the deceased plaintiff kept on paying the house tax and electricity and water charges in respect of the suit property during his lifetime.
C The suit filed by the deceased plaintiff was well within time in view of provisions of Article 66 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 on June 01, 2007 when the deceased plaintiff revoked the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 on account of breach of condition of Gift Deed by Donee i.e. defendant No.2. In said regards, counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court reported as AIR 2001 SC 2340 Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 15 of 31
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines „Gift‟ as under”-
“ 122. “Gift” defined. – “Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
Acceptance when to be made. – Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.”
a) There must be transfer of ownership – As in the case of a sale, there must be a transfer of all the rights in the property by the donor to the donee. However, it is permissible to make conditional gifts. The only restriction is that the condition must not be repugnant to any of the provisions of Sections 10 to 34 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
b) The ownership must relate to a property in existence – Gift must be made of existing movable or immovable property capable of being transferred. Future property cannot be transferred.
c) The transfer must be without consideration – The word „consideration‟ refers to monetary consideration and does not include natural love and affection.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 16 of 31
property so as to vest it in the transferee, the donee. The donor must be a sui juris. He must have attained the age of majority, possess a sound mind and should not be otherwise disqualified.
f) The transferee must accept the gift – The gift must be accepted by the donee himself. Acceptance must be made during lifetime of the donor and while he is capable of giving.
“ 123. Transfer how effected. – For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered.”
“ 126. When gift may be suspended or revoked – The donor and 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; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.
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.
Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 17 of 31
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.”
a) The gift deed dated June 10, 1997 was executed by the deceased plaintiff on account of fraud/undue influence being played/exercised by the defendants.
b) Defendant No.2 committed breach of condition of Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 by preventing the deceased plaintiff from residing in the front (drawing) room of the suit property during his lifetime thereby entitling the deceased plaintiff (and his legal representative) to revoke the Gift Deed.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 18 of 31
“4. Particulars to be given where necessary – In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with date and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.” (Emphasis Supplied)
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 19 of 31
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 20 of 31
right which is claimed is to be set-forth and no issue pertaining to existence of tenancy could be framed on a vague plea.
“27. The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence. The pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are introduced, then the Court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the Court must approach it with clean hands.”
74. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will not raise an issue, and the Court can reject claim or pass decree on admission. On vague pleadings, no issue arises. Only when he so establishes, does the question of framing an issue arise. Framing of issues is an extremely important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to carefully examine the pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given case.
78. The Court must ensure that the pleadings of a case must contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on details reduces the ability to put forward a non-existent or false claim or defence.” (Emphasis Supplied)
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 21 of 31
plaint. The plaint is „conspicuously‟ silent regarding the nature of (alleged) fraud/undue influence played/exercised by the defendants. The plaint is silent as to what and when were the representations made by the defendants which led the deceased plaintiff to execute the Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 and which were ultimately found to be false. Likewise, there is no averment in the plaint that the defendants or any of them were in a position to dominate the will of the deceased plaintiff and used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the deceased plaintiff.
“With the condition that Donor will reside in front (Drawing) room throughout his life and Donee will give the house to her son Vikas Verma after his marriage”
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 22 of 31
“The well settled legal position, based on authorities, is that a gift, subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor, cannot be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act for failure of the donee to maintain the donor, firstly for the reason that there is no agreement between the parties that the gift could be either suspended or revoked; and secondly, this should not depend on the will of the donor; again, the failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by her in the document is not a contingency which should defeat the gift; all that could be said is that the default of the donee in that behalf amounts to want of consideration; Section 126 thus provides against the revocation of a document of gift for failure of consideration; if the donee does not maintain the donor as agreed to by the donee, the latter (donor) could take proper steps to recover maintenance; it is not open to a settler to revoke a settlement at his will and pleasure and he has got to get it set aside in a court of law by putting forward such pleas as bear on the invalidity of a deed of gift. Under Section 122 the Transfer of Property Act, a gift is complete when it is accepted by or on behalf of the donee; where there is evidence that the gift of property by a person to his wife and children was accepted by the donees, the fact,--that the donor, who had no other property,--stayed on the property, even after the gift,--does not show that the gift had not taken effect; where no right in the property is reserved in the donor, the fact that there is a clause in the deed (as in the present case) that the donee should maintain the donor, does not show that the donor continued to be the beneficial owner; a direction in a gift deed that the donee should maintain the donor till his death will not make the gift a conditional one; if the terms of the gift deed were ,that there had been an absolute transfer of the property in favour of the donee, such a direction for maintenance shall be regarded only as an expression of pious wish on the part of the donor.
On the aspect of such pious wishes, the legal position is that where a gift deed, after the operative portion of the deed,
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 23 of 31
provided that the donee was to render services to the donor and to meet the donor's funeral expenses, such directions are only pious wishes and do not give any right to the donor to revoke the gift if the conditions are not observed; when, therefore, there is an out and out transfer, followed by a direction to the donee to maintain the donor, the latter direction is only a pious wish; on the other hand 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.
7. This leads me to the construction of the deed of gift, in the present case, in the light of the legal position as stated above. On a plain reading of the document, it is clear that the defendant donor makes a complete gift of the suit lands in the operative portion of the document, making the plaintiff full owner in possession from the date thereof "Aja dina tharu sampuma malik dakhalkar karai'' (in vernacular); it is after making the plaintiff full owner, in respect of the suit lands, that the defendant expresses her pious wish later on in the document to the effect that the plaintiff would render to the defendant "Sebadharma and Bharan Poshan," that is to say, to render to the defendant services and maintain her during her lifetime and she further expressed a wish that after her death the plaintiff would perform her funeral rites; then the document ends, by providing that the defendant or her heirs will not have. In any way any right to the suit lands and if they claim any right then on the strength of this document such claim will be invalid in law courts; the only condition attached to the gift as stated in the last sentence is that the plaintiff will not be able to sell or mortgage without the consent of her husband (plaintiff's husband), and that the plaintiff will not alienate the suit lands by sale or mortgage etc. during the lifetime of the defendant, and that if she does so, it will be invalid; thus, reading the document as a whole, it is clear that it was an out and out gift, and that the directions as to her maintenance and Sebadharma are only pious wishes expressed by the defendant in the document.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 24 of 31
9. In support of his proposition, that the deed of gift is revocable, the learned counsel for the defendant respondent relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Balbhadar Singh v. Lakshmi Bai, 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. The learned counsel's point is that in order that the defendant may get Sebadharma (services) from the plaintiff she (plaintiff) has to remain in the house; but the plaintiff having remarried, she cannot perform the Sebadharma of the defendant because the plaintiff has left the house of the defendant and remarried. In my opinion, this argument cannot stand, in view of the legal position as stated above. With regard to the decision, relied on by the learned counsel, it appears that the Allahabad High Court observed that it was arguable that in the. absence of an express power of revocation for failure of the condition the gift cannot be impugned or revoked. Therefore, the Allahabad decision,--which was decided on the particular facts of the case,--does not support the defendant's contention. In the present case, as is clear from the document itself, there is no agreement that on failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform any of the conditions, namely, Sebadharma etc. the gift will be invalid. In other words, there must be a defeasance or default clause in order to make the gift revocable; if there was a condition that on failure to perform any of the conditions the gift will be void, then certainly the gift could have been revoked; the document "does not make any provision to that effect. Here, the defendant cancelled the gift,--as appears from the deed of cancellation,--in apprehension that the plaintiff might waste the property by transfer; it is not the defendant's case that, by reason of the plaintiff's having failed to perform her Sebadharma etc. that she revoked the deed of gift. (Emphasis Supplied)
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 25 of 31
“14. In Murikipudi Ankamma v. Tummalacheruvu Narasayya learned single Judge of Madras High Court held that in the absence of any express reservation of a power of revocation in the gift deed a donor does not continue to have the right to revoke a gift. For if a man will improvidently bind himself up by a voluntary deed, and not reserve a liberty to himself by a power of revocation, a Court will not loose the fetters he has put upon himself and without reservation of power to revoke, gift cannot be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.
15. In Gandadhara Iyer v. Kulathu Iyer Sankara Iyer AIR 1952 TC 47, a Division Bench of the said Court held that when there is an out-and-out transfer by way of gift followed by a direction to the donee to maintain the donor the latter direction is only a pious wish. On the other hand, if the gift deed starts with a statement that it is made with the object of providing for the 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. Thus, where after the operative portion of the gift deed other clauses providing for the expenses in connection with the donor's funeral ceremonies and for the services expected from the donee are introduced, the directions will not give any right to the donor to revoke the gift if the conditions are not observed.
16. In M.Venkatasubbaiah v. M.Subbamma, AIR 1956 AP 195, learned single Judge held that a gift subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor cannot be revoked under Section 125 for failure of the donee to maintain the donor firstly for the reason that there is no agreement between the parties that the gift should be either suspended or revoked: and secondly this should not depend on the will of the donor. Again, the failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by him in the document is not a contingency which could defeat the gift. All that could be said is that the default of the donee in that behalf amounts to want of consideration. Section 126 itself provides against the revocation of a document of gift for failure of consideration. If the donee does not maintain the donor as agreed to by him, the latter could take proper steps to recover maintenance etc. It is not open to a settler to revoke a
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 26 of 31
settlement at his will and pleasure and he has to get it set aside in a Court of law by putting forward such pleas as bear on the invalidity of gift deed. Similar view was taken by Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh in Smt. Gaurju v. Tara Chand AIR 1962 HP 4.
17. A learned single Judge of Orissa High Court in Tila Bewa v. Mana Bewa has also held that gift cannot be revoked for failure of donee to maintain donor under Sections 126 and 122 of the Transfer of Property Act as there was no agreement between the parties that the gift could be either suspended or revoked.
18. In Union Bank Ltd. v. Mst. Ram Rati (Lucknow Bench), learned single Judge has held that a gift would be a valid gift if the gift has been accepted even though the document may not have been registered at the time of the execution of the document and it cannot be revoked subsequently, if the document has been registered. Further it is said that a completed gift takes effect from the date of the execution and not from the date of registration.
19. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Shakuntla Devi v. Smt. Amar Devi AIR 1985 HP 109, has held that if the gift not based on fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation its cancellation is not valid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.
20. In Vannathi Valappil Janaki v. Puthiya Purayil Paru a learned single Judge of Kerala High Court has held that when a gift of immovable property has been accepted by the donees and they are in possession of the property the fact that after making the gift the donors felt that it was a folly or imprudence or want of foresight on their part to have executed the deed of gift will not clothe them with power of revocation of the gift under Sections 126 and 122 of the Transfer of Property Act.
21. A learned single Judge of this Court in Mool Raj v. Jamna Devi AIR 1995 HP 117, has held that when no specific condition of revocation has been made in the deed itself, in the event of failure of the donee to render services to the donor or
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 27 of 31
maintain the donor the gift cannot be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.
22. In the case in hand there is no specific condition either for giving maintenance or for revoking of the gift deed in case services are stopped to be rendered by the donee. Anyway, the fact remains, as has been stated in the deed of gift that the gift was in lieu of services meaning thereby that the donee had to render services to the donor-plaintiff but in the absence of any specific condition in the event of failure of the donee to render services, the gift could not be revoked. Thus, the deed of gift Ext. D-1 if considered as an outcome of general law cannot be said to be revocable one when no specific condition for its revocation has been made in the deed Itself in the event of failure of the donee to provide services to the donor or maintain the donor, the gift cannot be revoked.” (Emphasis Supplied)
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 28 of 31
“ 11. Restriction repugnant to interest created – Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favor of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose off such interest as if there were no such direction.
Where any such direction has been made in respect of one piece of immovable property for the purpose of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce such direction or any remedy which he may have in respect of a breach thereof.”
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 29 of 31
purpose of securing beneficial enjoyment of another immovable property, the same i.e. condition that defendant No.2 shall give the suit property to her son Mr.Vikas Verma after his marriage is undoubtedly void and inoperative in view of prescription contained in Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and settled legal position that provisions relating to „Gifts‟ contained in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are subject to provisions of Chapter II of the Act including Section 11 thereof. 45. The decision of Supreme Court in Naramadaben ‟s case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for appellant is clearly distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of present case. In Naramadaben ‟s case (supra) after examining the factual backdrop the Supreme Court concluded that „gift did not become complete during the life time of the donor and thus had become ineffective and inoperative.‟ In the instant case, the gift had become complete during the lifetime of donor i.e. the deceased plaintiff. 46. We note that an argument was advanced on behalf of appellant before the Single Judge that gift in question was not complete in the instant case as the deceased had not delivered the possession of the suit property to the defendant No.2 at/after the time of making the gift. In this regards, suffice would it be to note the dictum of law laid down by threeJudge Bench of Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2014) 9 SCC 445 Renikuntla Rajamma vs. K. Sarwanamma that delivery of possession of gifted property is not an essential requirement for making a valid gift of the immovable property.
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 30 of 31
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 mamta
RFA (OS) No.103/2014 Page 31 of 31
3 issues framed by the court
Did allegations of fraud and undue influence lacking material particulars require a trial?
Could breach of the donor's lifetime residence condition revoke the gift without an express revocation stipulation?
Did the direction to transfer the property to the donee's son invalidate the completed gift to the donee?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narmadaben Maganlal Thakker vs. Prajivandas Maganlal Thakker & Ors.Distinguished¶201
(1997) 2 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra.Referred¶109
AIR 2001 SC 2340 · Who else cites this
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. vs. Nirmala Devi & OrsRelied on¶147
2011 (6) SCALE 677
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & OrsRelied on¶150
1987 (2) SCC 555 · Who else cites this
Pandu Dhongi Yerudkar vs. Ananda Krishna Patil & Anr.Referred¶152
1974 (6) BLR 368
M/s Nilesh Construction Company & Anr vs. Mrs. Gangubai & OrsReferred¶152
AIR 1982 Bom 491 · Who else cites this
D.M. Deshpande & Ors vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam & OrsRelied on¶152
AIR 1999 SC 1464 · Who else cites this
A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai SangamRelied on¶155
2012 (6) SCALE 340
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de SequeriaRelied on¶157
2012 (5) SCC 370 · Who else cites this
Tila Bewa vs. Mana BewaApplied¶169
AIR 1962 Ori 130 · Who else cites this
Tokha vs. Smt. Biru & OrsApplied¶177
AIR 2003 HP 107 · Who else cites this
Renikuntla Rajamma vs. K. SarwanammaApplied¶201
(2014) 9 SCC 445 · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 3 enactments
SEHDEV SINGH VERMA
J P S VERMA
Om Wati Verma
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
