Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Gift Once Validly Executed and Accepted Cannot Be Revoked Without Specific Conditions: Supreme Court

26 October 2024 8:48 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, addressing the legality of revocation of a gift deed under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the gift deed, affirming that it had been validly executed, accepted, and acted upon, and could not be revoked in the absence of express provisions permitting such revocation.

The dispute arose from a gift deed executed on March 5, 1983, wherein the appellant, N. Thajudeen, transferred a parcel of land (3750 square feet in Survey No. 16/1, Cuddalore District) to the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent) for the purpose of manufacturing Khadi products. On August 17, 1987, the appellant sought to revoke the gift, claiming that the respondent had not accepted it.

The respondent, however, had filed a suit seeking a declaration of its title over the property and recovery of possession, relying on the gift deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the gift deed was not valid as it had allegedly not been accepted. On appeal, both the District Court and the Madras High Court reversed this finding, ruling in favor of the respondent. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court focused on two key issues:

Validity and Acceptance of the Gift Deed: Whether the gift deed dated March 5, 1983, had been validly executed, accepted, and acted upon as per the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Revocation of the Gift Deed: Whether the revocation of the gift deed on August 17, 1987, was valid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court ruled that the gift deed was validly executed and accepted by the respondent. It noted that the possession of the suit property had been handed over to the respondent on the date of the gift itself. Additionally, the respondent applied for mutation of the property and had begun construction on the land, clearly demonstrating that the gift had been accepted and acted upon.

“Exhibits A-2 to A-4 prove that the possession of the suit property was taken over by the plaintiff-respondent on the date of the gift itself, which is sufficient evidence that the gift was acted upon and accepted by the plaintiff-respondent.” [Para 9]

Thus, the donor had no further rights or interest in the property after the execution of the gift deed.

The Court examined Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which governs the revocation of gifts. According to this section, a gift can be revoked only under specific conditions agreed upon by the donor and donee or if the circumstances resemble those under which a contract could be rescinded.

The Court ruled that no such contingency or agreement existed in this case. The gift deed did not contain any clause permitting its revocation, nor was there any agreement between the parties regarding the same. The Court observed:

“A gift which is revocable wholly or in part at the mere will of the donor is void... In the present case, there is no agreement between the parties for the revocation of the gift deed wholly or in part.” [Para 15]

Consequently, the appellant’s attempt to revoke the gift on August 17, 1987, was deemed invalid. The revocation deed was declared "void ab initio."

The appellant also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court clarified that a suit for recovery of possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for a 12-year limitation period. Since the suit was filed within this period, the Court held that it was not time-barred.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the District Court and High Court, affirming that the gift deed was valid and could not be revoked. The appeal was dismissed, and the revocation deed was rendered void.

“Thus, none of the exceptions permitting revocation of the gift deed stands attracted in the present case. Leading to the only conclusion that the gift deed, which was validly made, could not have been revoked in any manner.” [Para 15]

The Court’s decision reinforces the sanctity of properly executed gift deeds and the limited grounds under which they can be revoked.

Date of decision: 24/10/2024

N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board

 

Latest Legal News