9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acceptance of the gift deed by a minor. 2. Whether the gift deed was irrevocable. 3. Impact of the donor retaining management and income rights. 4. Validity of the cancellation deed and subsequent Will. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Acceptance of the Gift Deed by a Minor: The primary legal question was whether the minor donee could legally accept the property gifted to him on 24.9.1945. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, stating that the gift was invalid due to the minor's inability to accept it. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that a minor is not disqualified from receiving property under a gift deed and that acceptance could be express or implied. The High Court later contradicted this, stating that the terms of the gift deed did not indicate any property transfer. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, a minor can accept a gift, and such acceptance can be implied. The Court noted that the minor donee, aged 16, was capable of understanding the gift and that his parents' knowledge and non-repudiation of the gift indicated acceptance. The Court emphasized that "where a gift is made by a parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance of the gift by the donee." 2. Whether the Gift Deed was Irrevocable: The Court examined whether the gift deed could be revoked. Under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift, once accepted, becomes irrevocable except under specific conditions. The Supreme Court concluded that the gift deed was duly accepted and thus irrevocable. The donor's subsequent cancellation deed and Will were deemed ineffective. The Court stated, "the gift having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete, it was irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act." 3. Impact of the Donor Retaining Management and Income Rights: The High Court had held that since the donor retained the right to sign papers and receive income from the property, no ownership was transferred. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that ownership and title were transferred to the donees, while possession and enjoyment were retained by the donor during her lifetime. The Court cited Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, which allows ownership to be transferred without possession. The judgment noted, "There is no prohibition in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without its possession and right of enjoyment." 4. Validity of the Cancellation Deed and Subsequent Will: The donor executed a cancellation deed on 28.3.1970 and a Will on 30.3.1970, bequeathing the same property to her daughter. The Supreme Court found these documents ineffective because the gift deed was irrevocable once accepted. The Court highlighted that the donor did not mention non-acceptance of the gift in the cancellation deed, reinforcing the presumption of acceptance. The judgment stated, "It was, therefore, not competent for the donor to have cancelled the gift and executed a Will in relation to the property." Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the donee's appeal, setting aside the High Court and trial court judgments, and restored the first appellate court's judgment. The connected appeal by the respondent was dismissed. The Court held that the gift deed was validly accepted, irrevocable, and the subsequent cancellation and Will were void.
|
