Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by donor to donee, duly executed and possession transferred –
45 years later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees stopped rendering these services, and original donees have died, suit land to revert to plaintiffs – Trial court decreed the suit holding that the subject matter of gift was only a life interest in suit land and since services had stopped the land was to be reverted in favour of plaintiffs – First Appellate Court upheld the same – High Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was not mentioned in the mutation that the donees had to serve the heirs of the donor as well and it could be presumed that proper services were rendered to donor during his lifetime, and the plaintiffs failed to disclose these services and when they were stopped – Interference:
Held: Not called for – In case of resumption of land where there has been long and uninterrupted possession of defendants, strong evidence is required by plaintiffs seeking a decree of possession – Plaintiffs case not backed by any plausible evidence – Gift was for past services but even if it is assumed that it was for some past and some future services, no occasion for the defendants to render the services as the plaintiffs-appellants had left the village and now, when defendants have been enjoying peaceful possession of land for long, resumption of land in favour of appellants will not be justified – There was only a vague and conclusory allegation that the defendants have discontinued to serve the successors of the donor-plaintiffs, without any evidence in support of the same – s.127 permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a begar or forced labour, even slavery and thus, it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees – This so-called rendering of services, was to be in perpetuity – Thus, the condition as is being read by the plaintiffs is nothing short of reading forced labour, as a condition – Meaningful and purposive interpretation is required – Thus, there was never such a condition of rendering continuous services in the gift deed and services here meant only the past services rendered by the donees to the donor, or at best it may include services to be rendered by the donees to the original donor, who passed away in the late 1950s – Gift had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity as the plaintiffs would like to read s.127 permitting onerous gifts was not in force as TPA not applicable in erstwhile Punjab – Nor can it be said that such condition being based on equity, justice and good conscience can be read into the gift deed as a valid condition – Stipulated condition of services and the continuation of the rendering of such services has to be read in the context when the deed was executed – Services shall be understood only as past services rendered, or at most, the services which had to be rendered by the original donees to the original donor during his lifetime – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.126 and 127. [Paras 10-18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.