Law Web: Whether a registered gift deed executed in favour of live in partner is void as it is for immoral consideration?

In our view, the whole approach of the trial Court and

First Appellate Court in this third round is completely

fallacious. If one may say the reasoning is based only on a

social belief that the man staying with a woman, who is not his

wife and giving his property to her is something immoral and

improper and she should not be the beneficiary of gift deed

even if the donor stands by the gift deed.

If one may say, even the belief of the original

plaintiffs and now the appellants before us is predicated on

this prejudice that they have an inherent right to get the

benefit of the properties as being the brothers of the

deceased and the lady who stayed with him, wife or not, is not

entitled for the same. It is in these circumstances that one

of the issues framed originally was also whether Pritam Kaur

enjoyed the status of a wife or not. In our view, if the donor

is making a gift out of his own free will and volition and is

the exclusive owner of the properties, it is nobody’s concern

as to whom he gives the properties to.

What is most material is that all the Courts have found

(i.e. three concurrent findings) that they are not ancestral

properties. This plea was really raised as an alternative in

the second round having failed to establish the reversionary

rights in the first round. That should have been the end of

the matter. The gift deed is a registered gift deed. The

common written statement filed by Gian Singh and Pritam Kaur

affirmed to the execution of the gift deed. The fact that they

did not step into the witness box is an incidence of Gian

Singh passing away and much later Pritam Kaur also having

passed away. That does not take the validity of the gift deed.

We are really not concerned with the moralistic issue whether

Pritam Kaur was actually married to Gian Singh as the second

wife or was she just living with him. There was undoubtedly

companionship and Gian Singh in his wisdom deemed it

appropriate to handover the properties through registered gift

deed to Pritam Kaur. In the written statement he did say that

she is his wife of 35 years’ standing.

We would in the end say that it is time that the Courts

get out of this mindset, or possibly may have got out of this

mindset by now on passing value judgments on relationships

between parties in determining either a testamentary or nontestamentary disposition so long as the document executed is

found to be validly executed. Some kind of a male chauvinistic

approach appears to have coloured judgments passed by the

trial Court and the First Appellate Court which is of course a

reflection of the mindset of the appellants before us.

We, thus, dismiss the appeal with costs and bring this

half decade of litigation to an end.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.1731/2009

MOHINDER SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Vs MAL SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Dated: 09th MARCH, 2022

More than half a century has passed since the suit was

filed on 19.10.1971 by Mohinder Singh and Gurnam Singh, who

are represented by their legal heirs as appellants before us

for declaring that a gift deed executed by their brother, Gian

Singh in favour of Pritam Kaur with respect to schedule

properties ‘A’ & ‘B’ as mentioned in the headnote of the

plaint, is null and void and not binding on their rights being

reversioners as also the rights of other reversioners of Gian

Singh on his death. It was the case of the appellants that

Gian Singh was governed by general customary law till the

enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act and Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act and the appellants were the nearest best legal

heirs of Gian Singh. It was alleged that Gian Singh was

issueless, without a wife, had no relationship with

Pritam Kaur, the beneficiary of the gift deed and that

Pritam Kaur daughter of Gurbax Singh was not the wife of Gian

Singh. The appellants alleged later, as per facts set out

hereinafter that Gian Singh was married to one Pritam Kaur

daughter of Inder Singh who had pre-deceased him.

On the suit being filed, a common written statement was

filed by Gian Singh and Pritam Kaur, affirming to the

execution of the gift deed and Pritam Kaur being his wife.

Gian Singh passed away on 24.1.1972 and thereafter the

respondents sought to amend the plaint on 11.2.1972 seeking a

decree of possession and for declaration of ownership of

Schedule Property ‘C’ as mentioned in the headnote of the

plaint.

The suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 03.11.1973

predicated on a reasoning that the Punjab Custom (Power to

Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 applied to a pending proceeding

according to which no decree could be passed declaring

alienation of ancestral properties to be invalid.

Consequently, the suit filed by Mohinder Singh and Gurnam

Singh was dismissed. An appeal against this was dismissed by

the District Judge, Patiala and in the second appeal the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the view vide its

judgment dated 25.9.1975. The appellants then filed a special

leave petition before this Court challenging the order of the

High Court in which leave was granted and appeal was

registered as Civil Appeal No.263 of 1976. This appeal was

heard with a number of other matters dealing with the issue of

the claim of such revisionary rights and has been decided in

Darshan Singh Vs. Ram Pal Singh & Anr,(1992) Suppl.(1) SCC

191. The plea raised on reversion was rejected but in terms of

operative paragraph 61 the matters were reverted back to be

decided in accordance with Hindu Law.

Thus after a complete round of litigation, the second

round began before the High Court. The learned Single Judge

of the High Court remitted the case back to the trial Court

vide an Order dated 27.4.1995 on the premise that there were

no pleadings to the effect that in the alternative the case of

the plaintiff needed to be examined under Hindu Law. In the

meantime even Pritam Kaur daughter of Gurbax Singh had passed

away on 18.6.1992 and her legal representatives viz. Mal

Singh, respondent No.1 herein, based on a will dated 31.1.1992

was brought on record. The said respondent No.1 filed a

written statement submitting that Pritam Kaur had sold some of

the suit properties to different persons including respondent

No.2 to respondent No.11 before us who were also present in

both proceedings. It is in their replication dated 21.11.1995

to the amended written statement so filed that the appellants

for the first time averred that Pritam Kaur daughter of Inder

Singh was the wife of Gian Singh, that she had died on

02.02.1968 and that they alone were legal heirs of Pritam

Kaur.

The trial Court delivered a judgment dated 26.8.1998

granting a decree of declaration and possession with costs to

the effect that the appellants are the owners of the suit

properties being brothers of Gian Singh and having

reversionary right in suit properties, because Gian Singh had

passed away and his wife has predeceased him. The First

Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 15.2.2002 affirmed the

finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

We may briefly refer to the judgment of the First

Appellate Court as that forms the bedrock of the submissions

of learned counsel for the appellants. What emerges from the

reading of the judgment of the First Appellate Court is

following:-

(a) It was concurrently found that suit properties were

not ancestral in character.

(b) the Appellate Court notes that insofar as the

execution and validity of the gift deed is concerned,

the appellants had in fact half heartedly admitted

the execution of the same but challenged the same on

the grounds of fraud and illegality.

consideration for execution of the gift deed was

illegal and immoral as Pritam Kaur daughter of Gurbax

Singh had not led evidence to prove the marriage to

Gian Singh, was not the wife and thus such gift could

not be treated as legal and valid. This was

predicated on earlier views of the Punjab & Haryana

High Court in Lilu Ram & Anr. Vs. Mst Ram Piyari, AIR

1952 (Punjab & Haryana) 293 and the Patna High Court

in Ram Chander Parshad Vs. Sital Prasad, AIR 1948

Patna 130 of vintage year 1952 & 1948 that past

cohabitation by a man with his mistress is an immoral

consideration and cannot support a transfer.

(d) There was haste contrary to the natural conduct post

the execution of the gift deed on account of an

agreement to sell being executed within eight days

which alienated the rights in the properties and

would have left Gian Singh homeless.

We now turn to the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2009

of the High Court which allowed the RSA in terms of the order

of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court

who faulted both the judgments of the trial Court and Appellate

Court in what can be called a third round. The findings of the

Appellate Court are predicated on a reasoning that there was a

limited remit in pursuance to the Judgment of the Supreme Court

and the only issue which had to be examined in this third round

by the trial Court was the impact of Hindu Law with

reversionary rights being excluded. The appeal was allowed and

the respondents were thus entitled to the properties in

question. We may notice that it was recorded that the plea

raised of fraud for the first time, on the factum of Pritam

Kaur daughter of Gurbax Singh not being the wife of Gian Singh

was not something which could have influenced the judgments of

the Courts below.

We have spent considerable time hearing two learned

counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the

respondents, though the latter was not really required to

labour much on account of our view expressed at the inception

itself.