2024 (12) TMI 1128 - SC - Indian Laws

Oral gift of land for past services held valid despite service conditions attached

SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS. Versus SMT. CHAMELI & ORS.

SC dismissed appeal regarding validity of 1953 oral gift for past services. Lower court initially ruled for plaintiff seeking land resumption, but HC ... Validity and conditions of the oral gift executed in 1953 - gift for past services - onerous gifts - Applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the case - delay in filing suit - HELD THAT:- As far back as 1870, the Privy Council in Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee, had an occasion to consider broadly a similar case, where the appellant/plaintiff sought resumption of land granted to the defendants. The land was originally granted on the condition of rendering services, which were to keep off the incursion of wild elephants and attend to the safety of tenants in nearby areas. It was the appellants case that since the services are not required any more as the incursion of elephants has itself ceased, the land should revert to him as part of their zamindari. Lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the grounds, inter alia, that since the defendants therein have ceased to render the services, the land must revert to the plaintiff therein. This decree of the lower court was reversed by the High Court and the matter finally reached the Privy Council where defendants/grantees argued that they had rendered the services till they were required to do so and since the elephant incursion has stopped on its own, they are no longer bound by the condition. Similarly in the present case, the gift was for past services but even if it is assumed that it was for some past and some future services, there was no occasion for the defendants to render the services as the 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. The defendants had produced their witness DW-1 before the Court who gave the evidence that the plaintiffs had left the village long ago, immediately after the death of the Donor, which would be only a few years after the gift deed was executed in 1953 and therefore, there was no question of rendering any further service. On a perusal of the material on record, both the plaint and PW-1’s deposition are conspicuously silent regarding any specific instances where services were denied by the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest. There was only a vague and conclusory allegation that services have been refused, without any evidence in support of the same. Now all conditions for a valid gift deed were in existence when it was made on 13.12.1953. The subject matter of transfer was an immovable property (land), and it was without any consideration. There was also an acceptance of this gift deed by the donees, when the donor was alive, as possession of this land was given the very same day to the donees and this undisputed fact is on record - Under TPA a valid gift can be made without giving immediate possession to the donee as has been held by this Court in Renikuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma [2014 (7) TMI 1284 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that section 123 of TPA supersedes Hindu Law and delivery of possession is not an essential requirement for the gift to be valid under provisions of TPA. Section 127 of TPA, which permits onerous gifts, was not in force in present day Haryana which was earlier part of Punjab, as TPA was not applicable there. Nor can we say that such a condition being based on equity, justice & good conscience can be read into the gift deed as a valid condition - The 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. Thus, 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. There are no doubt that the plaintiffs had absolutely no case. Hence, the impugned judgment calls for no interference - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity and conditions of the oral gift executed in 1953.2. Applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the case.3. Interpretation of the gift conditions regarding services.4. Impact of delay in filing the suit and its implications on the claim.5. Legal principles regarding onerous gifts and revocation of gifts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Conditions of the Oral Gift Executed in 1953:The dispute revolves around an oral gift made in 1953, where land was gifted by the donor to the donees in lieu of services. The plaintiffs, heirs of the donor, claimed that the gift was conditional upon the donees and their heirs rendering services to the donor and his heirs. The defendants countered that the gift was unconditional and that they had been rendering services as required. The High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of the specific services required or when they were stopped, leading to the dismissal of the suit.2. Applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the Case:The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not applicable in Punjab at the time of the gift in 1953. However, principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, which underpin the Act, were considered applicable. Sections 126 and 127 of the Act, which deal with revocation and onerous gifts, were analyzed to determine the validity of the gift and the conditions attached to it.3. Interpretation of the Gift Conditions Regarding Services:The plaintiffs argued that the gift was conditional upon the donees providing lifelong services. However, the court noted that such a condition, if interpreted as requiring perpetual service, would be unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights against forced labor. The court concluded that the gift should be understood as rewarding past services or, at most, services rendered during the donor's lifetime, and not as requiring perpetual service.4. Impact of Delay in Filing the Suit and Its Implications on the Claim:The plaintiffs filed the suit in 1998, 45 years after the gift and long after the donor's death. The court emphasized that claims for resumption of land after a long period of peaceful possession require strong evidence, which the plaintiffs failed to provide. The delay, along with the lack of evidence of non-compliance with the gift conditions, weakened the plaintiffs' case.5. Legal Principles Regarding Onerous Gifts and Revocation of Gifts:The court examined the principles of onerous gifts under Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, noting that a gift conditioned upon perpetual service would be void. The court held that the gift was valid as an absolute transfer of property, with the condition of service being limited to past services or services during the donor's lifetime. The lack of evidence of refusal to render services further supported the defendants' case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The court found no evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claim of non-compliance with the gift conditions, and the delay in filing the suit was significant. The interpretation of the gift as rewarding past services was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed with no interference in the High Court's judgment.