https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282676 A deed styled as a settlement was treated as a deferred disposition rather than a present transfer because the settlor retained income and enjoyment during his lifetime, and vesting and further devolution were postponed until later contingencies. The court held that the instrument did not divest the executant of any right, title or interest on the date of execution and therefore did not create immediate rights in the beneficiary's branch. It also held that acceptance by the donee was not proved, and mere registration or passive acquiescence was insufficient. Without proof of lifetime acceptance, the document could not operate as an effective or irrevocable transfer, and title under it failed. en-us Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:27:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282676 A deed styled as a settlement was treated as a deferred disposition rather than a present transfer because the settlor retained income and enjoyment during his lifetime, and vesting and further devolution were postponed until later contingencies. The court held that the instrument did not divest the executant of any right, title or interest on the date of execution and therefore did not create immediate rights in the beneficiary's branch. It also held that acceptance by the donee was not proved, and mere registration or passive acquiescence was insufficient. Without proof of lifetime acceptance, the document could not operate as an effective or irrevocable transfer, and title under it failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282676