Bombay HC: What would be effect of lawful revocation of the original gift deed under Senior Citizen Act?

Insofar as the Petitioner’s contention that he has subsequently

transferred the subject property in favour of his wife is concerned, it

is evident that any such transfer is purely derivative of the petitioner’s title. Upon lawful revocation of the original gift deed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the very basis of the petitioner’s title stands divested, and consequently, any transfer effected by him would not, prima facie, create an indefeasible or superior right in favour of the transferee. At the same time, since the petitioner’s wife is not a party to the present proceedings, this Court refrains from rendering any conclusive adjudication upon her rights, if any, and leaves it open for her to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law. {Para 26}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12120 OF 2025

Shri. Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre, Vs  Smt. Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre,

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 6th MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:3563

Print Page

Supreme Court: Adoption By Widow Would Relate Back To Date Of Husband's Death, gift deed executed by widow will be held null and void

 It is the said finding of the trial Court that was set aside by the High Court in the first appeal with respect to the alienation under the gift deed dated 27.08.2008. A careful scanning of the impugned common judgment of the High Court would reveal that the sound reasoning of the trial Court in regard to this issue was interfered with and set aside without detailed discussion and at the same time without providing any good and sustainable reason therefor. It appears that the High Court was carried away by the fact that the gift deed is a registered one. We have already taken note of the fact that in order to be valid, acceptance of the gift is a pre-requisite. When the very case of one of the donees of the gift viz., the Defendant No. 4 that the property was in the possession of the donor herself till her death itself would reveal that the properties were not delivered and in other words in the legal sense there was no acceptance. The fact that Defendant No. 4 himself depose before the Court that he was not aware of the fact as to in whose possession the gifted properties lie with, would justify the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. True that the First Appellate Court will be having the power to reappreciate the entire evidence and to substitute any finding of the trial Court if it is legally required. At the same time, when once it is found that a sound reasoning given by a trial Court for returning a finding with respect to a definite issue the same cannot be likely interfered without giving appropriate sustainable reasons. The position with respect to the gift deed is discussed in detail by the trial Court and when it arrived at the conclusion that the pre-requisite for making the same valid was absent such a finding could be reversed only if it is found that the said finding was based on perverse precision of evidence. In the case on hand, the discussion as above would reveal that the pre-requisite to constitute a valid gift is lacking and the evidence discussed by the trial Court would support the said finding we do not find any reason for the Appellate Court to interfere with the same. The declaration that gift deed dated 27.08.2008 is null and void is made by the trial Court in the aforesaid circumstances and it is only as a necessary sequel that the trial Court held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to entire 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties as the sole legal heir of deceased Defendant No. 1. As noted hereinbefore, DW-1 herself in her written statement admitted the adoption of the Appellant/Plaintiff as her son and the registered adoption deed could fortify the same. When that be so the finding that the Appellant is entitled to the said properties being the sole legal heir of deceased Defendant No. 1 cannot be said to be faulty as it is the inevitable consequence of application for the 'Doctrine of Relation Back' and the ratio of the decisions in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar's case (supra) and Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra).{Para 29}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2025.

Decided On: 02.01.2025

Mahesh Vs. Sangram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sale Deed Executed After Adoption By Mother For Pre-Adoption Property Binding On Adopted Child

 Obviously, in the case on hand, the factum of adoption of the Appellant/the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 after the death of adoptive father, on 16.07.1994 is established by the Appellant/the Plaintiff and it is pertinent to note that the same was admitted by Defendant No. 1 as well, in her written statement. In such circumstances, in view of the 'Doctrine of Relation Back' and by applying the law laid down in Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra) relied on with agreement in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar's case (supra) the adoption by Defendant No. 1, the widow of Bhavakanna Shahpurkar, would relate back to the date of death of the adoptive father which is 04.03.1982 but then all lawful alienations made by Defendant No. 1 would be binding on the Appellant/Plaintiff. As held in Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra) in paragraph 11 his right to impeach previous alienations would depend upon the capacity of Defendant No. 1 who made the alienation as well as on the nature of the action of alienation. {Para 22}

23. The first among the alienations under challenge in the case on hand is the one where Defendant No. 1 effected sale of the properties covered by registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 in respect of 'A' Schedule property in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. There is concurrency with respect to the said issue between the trial Court and the High Court. The Courts have held that Defendant No. 1 got absolute right to effect the sale of the property covered thereunder and that the sale was done in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with the law. Admittedly, in regard to the sale, Defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed dated 13.12.2007 and she was not having a case that she had not received sale consideration. By applying the 'Doctrine of Relation Back' and the ratio of decisions in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar's case (supra) and Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra) it can only be held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is bound by the said alienation. This is because of the cumulative effect of the compromise decree in OS No. 122 of 2009 followed by Ext.D14 and the allotment of share based on the same. In this context it is also relevant to note that the factum of execution of the sale deed is not disputed by the Appellant but his contention is only that Defendant No. 1 could not have sold the property without his consent and knowledge. Though the alienation was subsequent to his adoption by virtue of the fact that Defendant No. 1 got absolute right and title in regard to the property covered by the said sale deed dated 13.12.2007 and that a valid sale was effected following the procedures, the challenge of the Appellant against the said alienation of property by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is not liable to be interfered with. We have no hesitation to hold that the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the High Court in regard to the said sale deed warrant no interference. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2025.

Decided On: 02.01.2025

Mahesh Vs. Sangram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Print Page

Allahabad HC: Oral gift deed under Muslim Law reduced in to writing which is not registered document can not be subjected to S. 47-A of Stamp Act

It is nobodies case that the hiba/gift deed was presented for registration. Once this fact is admitted by respondents that gift deed/hiba was not presented for registration, then proceedings under Section 47(A) of Indian Stamp Act cannot be pressed to service. Further, Section 47-A of the Act can only be applicable when any instrument/document is presented for registration and not otherwise. If the auhorities were of the view that hiba/git deed was required for payment of stamp duty, then the proceedings u/S 33 of the Stamp Act should have been initiated and not u/s 47-A of the Act. {Para 12}

13. This Court on various occasions has held that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act cannot be initiated for unregistered documents.

 In the High Court of Allahabad

(Before Piyush Agrawal, J.)

Writ - C No. - 41137 of 2010

Sahas Degree College,Vs State of U.P., 

Decided on August 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine All 4199.

Print Page

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

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to register gift deed executed by Muslim person?

Mohammedan Law - Gift by mohammedan - Can be made orally - Three essentials of valid gift are; 1) declaration by donor, 2) acceptance by donee, and 3) delivery of possession - If these essentials are satisfied, transaction would not be rendered invalid because it is reduced to writing on a plain piece of paper - Whether it requires registration would depend on facts of the case. 

The three essentials of a gift under Mohammedan Law are; (i) declaration of the gift by the donor; (2) acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (3) delivery of possession. Though, the rules of Mohammadan Law do not make writing essential to the validity of a gift; an oral gift fulfilling all the three essentials make the gift complete and irrevocable. However, the donor may record the transaction of gift in writing. Merely because the gift is reduced to writing by a Mohammadan instead of it having been made orally, such writing does not become a formal document or instrument of gift. When a gift could be made by Mohammadan orally, its nature and character is not changed because of it having been made by a written document. What is important for a valid gift under Mohammadan Law is that three essential requisites must be fulfilled. The form is immaterial. If all the three essential requisites are satisfied constituting valid gift, the transaction of gift would not be rendered invalid because it has been written on a plain piece of paper. The distinction that if a written deed of gift recites the factum of prior gift then such deed is not required to be registered but when the writing is contemporaneous with the making of the gift, it must be registered, is inappropriate and does not seem to be in conformity with the rule of gifts in Mohammadan Law. Section 129 of T.P. Act preserves the rule of Mohammadan Law and excludes the applicability of Section 123 of T.P. Act to a gift of an immovable property by a Mohammadan. It is not the requirement that in all cases where the gift deed is contemporaneous to the making of the gift then such deed must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Each case would depend on its own facts.

                                     SUPREME COURT

R.M. LODHA AND S.S. NIJJAR, JJ.

Hafeeza Bibi & Ors.Vs.Shaikh Farid (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2005

5th May, 2011

Citation: 2011(3) ALL MR 981 (S.C.)

Print Page

Whether the court can infer acceptance of a gift of immovable property from mutation entries?

 The word acceptance is defined as "is the receipt of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as acceptance of a gift." (See Ramanatha P. Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., page 19).

26. The aforesaid fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself. The only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself.

27. Hence, being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Asokan v. Lakshmikutty, MANU/SC/0104/2008 : (2007) 13 SCC 210

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance.

(emphasis supplied)

28. In the present case, the gift deed itself contained certain recitals as mentioned below:

...Out of the aforesaid land in all the khasra's 1/2 part means 50 percent I am giving you in gift being my younger son with my pleasure. My elder son Shri Babu Singh has no objection to this gift ... From today you are the owner of the half of the land gifted to you and you will have possession hereafter. You have the complete right over the aforesaid land for cultivation from today onward. Now you get the gifted land mutated in your name... These lands have not been sold or under Will or under the gift earlier. Further I state that the aforesaid land is free from any debt liability... The registration of the aforesaid gift has been done by me in my sound physical and mental health with consent without any undue coercion and pressure from anyone. I have gifted the aforesaid land with my sweet will and wish...

These recitals clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed.

29. In order to show acceptance, the counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the mutation records. The Mutation entry in the Revenue Record of Gram Sedriya, District Pali dated 28.10.1968 clearly reflects that half portion of Appellant's land was bestowed as a gift by the Appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift dated 19.12.1963.

30. Furthermore, the statement dated 31.08.1984, rendered by the Appellant-donor before the Court of Additional District Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed. He further stated that after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same.

31. The aforesaid statement of the Appellant-donor is completely supported by the statement made by the donee on 15.12.1988 before the Court of Additional District Magistrate. Therein, the donee clearly stated that, as he did not get along with his step-mother, he started living separately and the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same.

32. Therefore, the abovementioned circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. Not only the gift deed in itself contained recitals about transfer of possession, but also the mutation records and the statements of the both the donor and donee indicate that, there has been an acceptance of the gift by conduct.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5650 of 2010

Decided On: 08.12.2020

Daulat Singh (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0926/2020

Print Page

Delhi HC: Tests to determine when a deed can be treated as release deed or relinquishment deed

From a reading of the above judgments, the test to determine whether an instrument can be considered as a Release/Relinquishment Deed can be summarized as under:-

a. In determining whether the document is a release or Gift/Conveyance, the nomenclature used to describe the document or the language which the party may choose to employ in framing the document, is not a decisive factor. What is decisive is the actual character of the transaction intended by the executants;

b. Determination of the nature of the document is not a pure question of law;

c. Where a co-owner renounced his right in a property in favour of the other co-owner, mere use of word like 'consideration' and 'transfer' would not affect the true character of the transaction;

d. What is intended by a Release Deed is the relinquishment of the right of the co-owner;

e. Co-ownership need not be only through inheritance, but can also be through purchase;

f. Where the relinquishment of the right by the co-owner is only in favour of one of the co-owner and not against all, the document would be one of Gift/Conveyance and not of "release".

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 9193/2019 and 3560/2018

Decided On: 20.05.2020

Tripta Kaushik Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Chawla, J.

Print Page

Whether the court should exhibit gift deed (Hiba ) executed by muslim person even if it is not registered?

Under the provisions of Section 149 of the Mullas Principles of Mohammedan Law, there are only three essential conditions of a valid gift and those are 1] declaration of gift by the donor, 2] an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee and 3] delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. . It is stated in Section 150 that if these conditions are complied with, the gift is complete. In fact, Sub-section 3 of the Section 150 provides that if it is proved by oral evidence that gift was complete as required by law, it is immaterial that the donor has also executed the deed of gift, but the deed had not been registered as required by the Registration Act, Section 17(a). Thus in view of the provisions of Section 150(3) of the Mullas Principles of Mohamedan Law, it is clear that a gift made by the Mohamedan donor in writing is not compulsorily registrable. The trial court ought to have exhibited the document dated 11.4.1966 in the facts and circumstances of the case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 1843/2009

Decided On: 10.11.2009

 Abdul Rahim Vs. Qayyum and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.A. Naik, J.

Citation: 2010(1) ALLMR 328,2010(1) MHLJ 343,

Print Page

Whether donor can impose condition in gift deed that donee shall not have right to alienate gifted property?

 Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Brij Devi vs. Shiva Nanda Prasad and others, AIR 1939 Allahabad 221, wherein the High Court had occasion to consider Sections 10 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the above case also gift deed came into consideration which contained a condition that “The donee or his successors will have no right to transfer or mortgage”. The Division Bench of the High Court had laid down:

“Now the law of conditions in regard to the transfer of property is contained in Ch. 2 of the T.P. Act. No condition therefore, in our judgment, imposed upon a donee can be valid if it is inconsonant with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. 

This Court has already taken the view that condition restraining donee from alienation of gift, cannot be imposed and such a condition is void under Section 10 of the Act, 1882. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid view taken in Brij Devi (supra).

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1209 OF 2020

SRIDHAR Vs N. REVANNA 

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Dated:February 11, 2020.

Print Page

When it is not necessary to examine attesting witness to prove execution of gift deed?

Under the proviso to Section 68 the obligation to produce at least one attesting witness stands withdrawn if the execution of any such document, not being a will which is registered, is not specifically denied. Therefore, everything hinges on the recording of this fact of such denial. If there is no specific denial, the proviso comes into play but if there is denial, the proviso will not apply.

We think that specific denial of execution of gift is an unambiguous and categorical statement that the donor did not execute the document. It means not only that the denial must be in express terms but that it should be unqualified, manifest and explicit. It should be certain and definite denial of execution. What has to be specifically denied is the execution of the document. 

18. The question which elicited the above answer gives a clear understanding of the case of the Defendants as they understood their case. Defendants have no case that no document was executed by Anandan Nambiar. Their case is that the document is not valid because it had been executed under circumstances which would render the document invalid. There is no specific denial of the execution of the document. The Respondents can seek the aid of the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act. No defect in not calling an attesting witness to prove the document. We do not think that we can ignore Ext. A1 gift deed on the ground that no attesting witness has been called for, for proving the gift deed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019 

Decided On: 23.09.2019

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel  Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for plaintiff to pay advalorem court fee for seeking declaration that gift deed is not binding on him?

 So far as the issue of improper valuation and inadequate

payment of court fee is concerned the objection of counsel for

petitioners is on the plea that the suit should have been valued

on the basis of gift deed under challenge and accordingly the

advalorem court fee should have been paid.

12/ A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs are

claiming the suit property to be joint family property and alleged

gift deed has been executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of

defendants no. 3 & 4. Plaintiffs are not party to the gift deed

and the prayer in the suit is to declare the gift deed as null and

void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

13/ The record further reflects that plaintiffs have valued the

suit as per their share in the suit property and have accordingly

paid the court fee thereon and in respect of declaration relating

to gift deed the fix court fee has been paid and separate court

fee on the relief of permanent injunction has been paid.

14/ In view of the judgment of the Supreme court in the

matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh

& others reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3308 when the plaintiff is

not party to the gift deed and is claiming partition and injunction

then he is not liable to pay the advalorem court fee on the said

relief. Trial court has rightly examined the legal position in this

regard while holding that the advalorem court fee as per value

of the gift deed is not payable.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE

(S.B.: HON. SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)

Civil Revision No. 136/2011

Vishal Vs.   Hukumchand (dead) through his L.Rs.& others

O R D E R

(Passed on 22/4/2019 )

Citation: AIR 2019(NOC) 736 MP

Print Page

Supreme Court: it is not necessary to examine attesting witness to prove execution of gift deed if there is no specific denial

The question which elicited the above answer gives a clear understanding of the case of the Defendants as they understood their case. Defendants have no case that no document was executed by Anandan Nambiar. Their case is that the document is not valid because it had been executed under circumstances which would render the document invalid. There is no specific denial of the execution of the document. The Respondents can seek the aid of the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act. No defect in not calling an attesting witness to prove the document. We do not think that we can ignore Ext. A1 gift deed on the ground that no attesting witness has been called for, for proving the gift deed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019 

Decided On: 23.09.2019

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel  Vs.  Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 4822,2020(2) MHLJ 258

Print Page

Whether gift deed can registered after death of donor?

14. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “Gift” in the following words:—

“122. “Gift” defined.—“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

Acceptance when to be made.—Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.”

15. If the deed of gift satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, there is no scope to say that the said deed of gift is invalid. During the trial of the suit the deed of gift in question was marked as exhibit-“Ga”. It is found from the said exhibit that it was executed on 5th January, 1994. The recital of the deed states that the donees were grand-sons (sons of one of the daughters) of the donor. It is not disputed that before her death the donor used to reside in the house of the donees. They used to look after the donor during her old age. Precisely due to such reason, Jagomaya Dasi transferred the suit property in favour of the appellants by executing a deed of gift on 5th January, 1994. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that a deed of immovable property can be made only for transferring the right, title and interest by the donor to the donee by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and must be attested by at least two witnesses. The pre-existing right, title and interest of donor thereby stand divested in the donee only when the gift deed is duly registered and thereafter the donor would lose title to the property, provided the donee had accepted the property gifted over under the instrument.

18. The respondents have raised serious doubt over the authenticity of the said deed of gift because of the fact that it was registered after the death of the donor. However, well established is the law that it is not necessary for the validity of a deed of gift that it should be registered by the donor himself. In Bhabotosh v. Soleiman reported in 33 Cal 584, a Hindu man executed a deed of gift in favour of his wife and died, and the deed was subsequently registered at the instance of the widow-donee. Validity of the deed of gift was challenged on the ground that it was registered subsequent to the death of the donor. This Court held that subsequent registration of a deed of gift after the death of the donor at the instance of the donee did not offend the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The post-mortem registration of a deed of gift by the legal representative of the donor has the same effect as its registration by the donor himself during his lifetime.

In the High Court of Calcutta

(Before Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Dinabandhu Mondal  v. Laxmi Rani Mondal 

SA 596 of 2008

Decided on June 17, 2019, 

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 1118 : AIR 2019 Cal 232

Print Page

Whether gift deed will be void if it was executed when order of status quo was in existence?

 It is however the contention of the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 1155 of 2006 that said gift-deed has been executed when the order of status quo that was passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1208 of 2004 was in operation. Hence, said gift-deed was void. It is undisputed that during pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 1208 of 2004 and Writ Petition No. 5797 of 2005 which arose out of challenge to the interim order of injunction, the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo in regard to possession only. The said interim order related to the actual possession of the suit property and hence, same would not preclude execution of the gift-deed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal Nos. 457 and 458/2015

Decided On: 03.09.2018

Arvind  Vs.  Baba Jasbirsing Kalsi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: AIR 2019(NOC) 160 Bom

Print Page

Whether mentioning of Rs.5,000/- for purpose of valuation can be said to be consideration received by donor for executing gift deed?

 As there is a serious dispute with regard to
receipt of consideration of Five Thousand Rupees for
executing the gift deed, we have carefully perused the
copy of the gift deed which is placed on record. A

perusal of the gift deed makes it clear that what is
mentioned on the first page of the document, is the
valuation of the property for the purpose of stamp duty
and registration charges which is arrived at Rs.5,000/-,
but not the consideration received by the donor for
executing the gift deed. The gift deed is correctly
interpreted by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. But by misconstruing the same, the High Court has
held that gift was evidenced by a consideration amount
of Rs.5,000/-. It is true that if the gift is evidenced
by consideration,same cannot be valid one within the
meaning of Section 122 of the T.P. Act. But it is clear
from the document itself that no consideration is
passed on as per the registered gift deed. Mentioning of
Rs.5,000/- in the first page, for the purpose of
valuation, cannot be said to be a consideration received
by the donor for executing the gift deed.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2361 OF 2019
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.36299 of 2016]

Jagdish Chander  Vs Satish Chander And Ors.
Dated:February 27, 2019

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Print Page

Whether conditional gift deed is valid even if condition for gift is mentioned in separate agreement?

As to the execution and validity of the agreement, the first appellate court recorded a categorical finding based on the pleadings and evidence that it was a genuine document. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court was not interfered with by the High Court in the second appeal and rightly so. The gift deed and agreement were executed on the same day. Having regard to the evidence, the High Court and the first appellate court were right in taking the view that both formed the part of one transaction. It is not disputed that the gift deed did not contain any conditions in regard to the building of college on the suit plot but in the agreement it is clearly stated that in the suit land, there are built up chabutaras of 'samadhis' of the father and mother of the plaintiff, shall be maintained in the same condition; the suit land shall be used for the construction of a degree college and not for any other purpose; if the college is not built within six months, the gift deed will be deemed to have come to an end and that the plaintiff shall be considered to be the owner of the land; the possession will be of the plaintiff till the degree college is not built; in case the college building is not constructed within the said period, the plaintiff will be entitled to take appropriate action in the court of law and in the event the degree college is constructed, the plaintiff will have no right over the land. From these terms contained in the said deed of agreement, it is clear that the gift was not absolute and/or unconditional. the gift deed and the agreement forming one transaction are to be read together and given effect to accordingly. In other words, the defendants had to take both the benefit and burden. They could not reap the benefit and avoid to unload the burden. Since the defendants did not construct a college building on the suit land, the gift did not come into effect.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 6972 of 1999

Decided On: 11.05.2001

Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj  vs. Ramesh Chandra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Print Page

Whether principles for proof of execution of documents taken from pardanashin lady is applicable to illiterate lady?

In Agadhei Malikani and another v. Abhimanyu Mallik and others, MANU/OR/0133/1968 : ILR 1968 Cut. 576, this Court held that the principles which govern the proof of execution of documents taken from pardanashin woman equally apply to the documents taken from an illiterate woman.

10. The gift deed, Ext. B, reveals that Chandrama had put her L.T.I. There is no endorsement in the gift deed that the contents of the gift deed had been read over and explained to Chandrama and after understanding the contents thereof, she put her L.T.I. Learned trial court held that it is highly inconceivable that Chandrama executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of her entire property. The gift deed had not been acted upon.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

S.A. No. 249 of 1988

Decided On: 30.04.2018

 Gajraj Pasayat Vs.  Debraj Pasayat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.

Print Page

Whether valid gift deed can be executed even if possession of gifted property is not given to donee?

We have critically examined the contents of the gift deed. To us, it appears that the donor had very clearly transferred to the donees ownership and title in respect of her 1/8th share in properties. It was open to the donor to transfer by gift title and ownership in the property and at the same time reserve its possession and enjoyment to herself during her lifetime. There is no prohibition in law that ownership in a property cannot be gifted without its possession and right of enjoyment. Under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act "property of any kind may be transferred" except those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (i). Section 6 in relevant part reads thus:

6. What may be transferred.-Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force.

(a)* * *

(b) A mere right to re-entry for breach of a condition subsequent cannot be transferred to anyone except the owner of the property affected thereby.

(c)* * *

(d) An interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally cannot be transferred by him.

(e) A mere right to sue cannot be transferred.

11. Clause (d) of Section 6 is not attracted on the terms of the gift deed herein because it was not a property, the enjoyment of which was restricted to the owner personally. She was absolute owner of the property gifted and it was not restricted in its enjoyment to herself. She had inherited it from her maternal father as a full owner. The High Court was, therefore, apparently wrong in coming to the conclusion that the gift deed was ineffectual merely because the donor had reserved to herself the possession and enjoyment of the property gifted.

(Emphasis supplied)

17. We are in respectful agreement with the statement of law contained in the above passage. There is indeed no provision in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without transfer of possession of such property. As noticed earlier, Section 123 does not make the delivery of possession of the gifted property essential for validity of a gift.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4195 of 2008

Decided On: 17.07.2014

Renikuntla Rajamma Vs. K. Sarwanamma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2014 SC 2906

Print Page

Whether registered gift deed can be cancelled by execution of cancellation deed?

 It is the settled position of law that legal effect of registered deed of gift cannot be nullified as also its legal value cannot be reduced to zero merely by executing a deed of cancellation of said deed of gift unilaterally.

 In the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

(Before D. Dash, J.)

Duryodhan Mahanta & another 

v.

Bhanjakia Girls High School & others 

R.S.A. No. 436 of 2007

Decided on October 6, 2016

Citation:AIR 2017(NOC) 440 Orissa

Print Page