RESUMPTION OF GIFTED LAND

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

In SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS. VERSUS SMT. CHAMELI & ORS. - 2024 (12) TMI 1128 - SUPREME COURT, one Sri Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh (deceased) gave 38 bighas and 8 biswas to the defendants by means of gift. The gift was made on 13.12.1953 and the possession of the property was handed over to the doneee on that day itself, i.e., 13.12.1953. After a lapse of 45 years from the date of gift, the plaintiff files a suit for declaration and possession of the gifted property. The plaintiffs contended that they were the legal heirs of the donor. The suit land was given to the donees on the condition that they have to render services to the donor and his legal heirs lifelong. Since the donees stopped their services that are to be rendered to the legal heirs of the donors.  The original donor was expired. The plaintiff urged that the suit property shall be reverted to them since the respondents failed to keep the condition of the gift.

The defendants opposed the plaint averments, contending that-

• though the gift was for services rendered, there was no condition for the gift to revert to the donor upon the death of the donees;
• the records relating to possession and ownership of the suit land have been mutated in their favour since 1953; and
• the suit is barred by limitation.

The defendants gave evidence before the Trial Court that after the death of the donor, his children had left the village and nobody from the family of the donor remained in the village and therefore there was no one who could be served.

The Trial Court held that the subject matter of the gift was only a life interest in suit land and since the services have been stopped, the land was liable to be reverted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendant filed an appeal before the appellate Court against the judgment of the trial court. The appellate Court agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. The defendant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. However, the High Court held that nowhere in the mutation dated 13.12.1953 is it mentioned that the donees had to serve the heirs of the donor as well and it could be presumed that proper services were rendered to the donor during his lifetime. The plaintiffs failed to disclose what these “services” were and when exactly they were stopped.

Against the judgment of High Court, the plaintiff filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to consider the evidences submitted by the defendants. The transaction, in dispute, was occurred during the year 1953, which was immediately after the independence of our Nation. During the said period the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were not made applicable in the States including Punjab. The land reforms were for acquisition of land from big landlords and zamindars after placing a limit on land holding and then to redistribute it to the landless and the marginal agriculturist.

The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 which came into effect from 15.04.1953.  The big zamindars and big land owners were fully conscious that they would not be able to retain land beyond the ceiling fixed by the Statute, which had an outer limit of 30 standard Acres for a family. The land owners, therefore, either were gifting their land to their helpers, agricultural workers, even to priests or to temples, or in any other manner where they thought their best interest would lie.

The Supreme Court analysed the contentions of the appellant. The appellant contended that their predecessors-in-interest have gifted this land to the forefathers of the defendants with the condition that the land is being given to them so that they continue to provide lifelong services to the donor as well as to their descendants, and since they have discontinued these services, the land is liable to revert to the descendants/legal heirs of the original donor. The same is not backed by any plausible evidence except for their reliance on words and phrases in the gift deed. the possession of land was handed over the same day goes to show that it was actually an absolute transfer of property with transfer of interest in favour of the donees and their descendants.

The Supreme Court further observed that before the enforcement of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the transfer of immovable property in India was governed by the principles of English laws of equity. The Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Section 126 and 127 which provides for suspension revocation of gifts and onerous gift.

The gift was for past services but even if it is assumed that it was for some past and some future services, there was no occasion for the defendants to render the services as the appellants had left the village and now, when defendants have been enjoying peaceful possession of land for long, resumption of land in favour of appellants will not be justified. The oral gift, as recorded in the Mutation, has a default clause, i.e., “if the donee refuses to render services in that case the land shall revert to the donor or to his heirs”. The position regarding revocation of gifts upon breach is a possible condition. However, merely incorporating a defeasance clause will not exempt the plaintiff from discharging his burden. The plaintiff has to satisfy the Court and lead evidence to show what exactly was the nature of the services agreed upon, that a demand for these services was communicated and that the defendants refused rendering of services having reneged on the agreement.

The Supreme Court further observed that all conditions for a valid gift deed were in existence when it was made on 13.12.1953. The subject matter of transfer was an immovable property (land), and it was without any consideration. There was also an acceptance of this gift deed by the donees, when the donor was alive, as possession of this land was given the very same day to the donees and this undisputed fact is on record.

Next the Supreme Court observed that the condition as is being read by the plaintiffs where not only the donees but their successors were to continue giving services to the plaintiffs, that too indefinitely, is nothing short of reading forced labour, as a condition. Such a gift is not valid. The gift had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity.

The Supreme Court found no ground for interference of the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.