Revocation of gift defeated where possession passed, no enforceable service condition was proved, and perpetual unpaid service was impermissible.

A gift of land made in 1953 was treated as irrevocable where possession had been delivered, mutation had been effected, and no clear contractual obligation to render services was proved. In the Punjab pre-Transfer of Property Act setting, the Court applied equitable principles and rejected the claim for resumption because the plaintiffs produced no convincing evidence of a specific demand for services or of refusal by the donees and their successors. A construction that would require perpetual unpaid service to the donor's heirs was impermissible, as it would amount to forced labour and conflict with constitutional guarantees. The claim for revocation and recovery of possession therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the gift of land made in 1953 was revocable on the allegation that the donees and their successors had stopped rendering services, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to resumption of the property.

Analysis: The transfer was examined in the factual setting of a pre-Transfer of Property Act regime in Punjab, where only the equitable principles underlying the law of gifts were applied. The Court noted that the gift had been acted upon by delivery of possession and mutation in favour of the donees, and that the plaintiffs led no convincing evidence of a specific contractual obligation, a demand for services, or a proved refusal by the defendants. The alleged condition of perpetual service to the donor's heirs was held to be incapable of being read as an enforceable term requiring continued performance forever, since such a construction would amount to forced labour and would conflict with constitutional guarantees. On a proper reading, the condition could extend only to past services or, at most, services to the original donor during his lifetime.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish any legally enforceable ground for revocation of the gift or recovery of possession, and the claim for resumption was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to fail, and the defendants' long, peaceful possession was protected against the belated attempt to reopen the settled transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: A gift accompanied by possession and long, uninterrupted enjoyment cannot be revoked on a vague allegation of breach unless the donor's heirs prove a clear, enforceable condition and its breach; a construction that makes the donees render perpetual unpaid service is impermissible.

---