Supreme Court of India
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 684
- Decided
- 8 December 2020
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the 1976 show‑cause notice was within the statutory limitation, the 1963 gift deed was a valid transfer covered by Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore the appellant’s holdings were within the ceiling limit.
Summary
Daulat Singh, the appellant, owned 254.2 bighas of land and gifted 127.1 bighas to his son in 1963, leaving him with 17.25 standard acres below the ceiling limit. The Rajasthan Revenue Ceiling Department later reopened the case in 1982, alleging excess holdings, and the High Court declared the gift deed invalid for lack of acceptance. The Supreme Court examined three issues: the limitation period for reopening under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act, the validity of the 1963 gift deed under the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the High Court erred in ignoring Sections 30C, 30D and 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Court held that the show‑cause notice was issued within the statutory time‑limit, that the gift deed satisfied the requirements of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and was validly accepted, and that the transfer fell within the exemption of Section 30DD, thereby keeping the appellant’s holdings within the ceiling limit. Consequently, the Division Bench judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the reopening of the ceiling case was barred by the limitation period under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.
- Whether the registered gift deed executed in 1963 is a valid transfer under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- Whether the High Court erred in ignoring the provisions of Sections 30C, 30D and 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in determining the ceiling limit.
Legislation cited
- Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973s. 15, s. 6
- Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955s. 30C, s. 30D, s. 30DD
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 122, s. 123
Subjects
agricultural holdingsceiling lawgift deedlimitation periodtransfer of propertyRajasthan Tenancy ActSection 30DDre‑opening casesacceptance of gift
Judgment
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 845 845
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. A
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 5650 of 2010)
DECEMBER 08, 2020 B
[N. V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1973: s.15 – Power to reopen cases – Limitation period – Relevant
C
dates for determination of issue of limitation is the date of order
sought to be reopened and the date of issuance of show-cause
notice under s.15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – ss.30C, 30D, 30DD – Ceiling
limit – Appellant was owner of 254.2 bighas of land – On
D
19.12.1963, he gifted away 127.1 bighas of land to his son and
thereafter he was left with 17.25 standard acres of land – Proceeding
was initiated under the ceiling law but same was dropped on
14.04.1972 with observation that amendment of s.30DD of the Act,
1955 was effective from 31.12.1969 and since the gift deed was
executed before the said amendment, the said transfer was valid – E
By notice dated 15.03.1982, the Revenue Ceiling Department re-
opened the case of the appellant – Authorities held that the appellant
was holding land over and above the ceiling limit – High Court,
while passing the impugned order, held the registered gift deed dated
19.12.1963 to be invalid on the basis that it did not meet the
F
requirements as provided under s.122 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 – High Court observed that gift deed did not show
acceptance of gift by the donee, rather it seemed that donee was
even unaware of the gift – High Court held that appellant was
holding 4.5 standard acres of land in excess of ceiling limit –
Aggrieved land owner filed instant appeal – Held: The recitals in G
the gift deed indicated that donor intended to part with ownership
and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed –
Mutation entry in the Revenue Record reflected that half portion of
appellant’s land was bestowed as a gift by him to his son through a
registered instrument of gift – Even in the statement of the appellant,
H
845
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A he has stated that the transferee-son was living separately and was
cultivating the said gifted property and that he was in possession of
an ox and equipments for ploughing and agriculture – These facts
were reiterated by the transferee also in his statement – The
statements of transferor and the transferee clearly indicated that
the transferee had the equipment and skills and was sustaining
B
himself as an agriculturalist – Lastly, the said transfer was executed
way before the cut-off date stipulated under s.30DD i.e. 31.12.1969
– Therefore, the registered gift deed was a bona fide transfer
squarely covered within the ambits of s.30DD, which intended to
protect the rights of agriculturalists – The transfer of the land being
C valid under s.30DD, the ceiling area of the appellant fell within the
ceiling limit as provided under s.30C – Rajasthan Imposition of
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: ss.122, 123 – Whether the
registered gift deed executed by appellant was valid in the eyes of
D law – Held: For a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature
and must be made voluntarily – The said giving away implies a
complete dispossession of the ownership in the property by the donor
– Acceptance of a gift by the donee can be done anytime during the
lifetime of the donor – Act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be
inferred by the implied conduct of the donee – The recitals in the
E gift deed indicated that donor intended to part with ownership and
possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed –
Mutation Record clearly reflected that half portion of appellant’s
land was bestowed as a gift by him to his son through a registered
instrument of gift – Furthermore, the statement rendered by the
F appellant before the Additional District Magistrate indicated that
the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the
gift deed and after execution of the gift deed the donee started
cultivating on the same – This statement of the appellant was
completely supported by the statement made by the donee before
the Additional District Magistrate in which donee had stated that,
G 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 –
Therefore, these circumstances clearly indicated that there was an
acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor
H – Respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 847
RAJASTHAN & ORS
fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property – In light of A
the same, the Single Judge Bench took a plausible view that, it was
a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid
acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately
– Lastly, since it was registered deed bearing signature of the donor
and attested by two witnesses, the requirements under s.123 of the
B
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were satisfied – Gift deed – Rajasthan
Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 – Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955.
Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1973 – s.6 – Applicability of – Held: s.6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973
declares that every transfer of land including by way of gift, made C
on or after 26-09-1970 and before 01-01-1973, shall be deemed to
have been made to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973
– In the instant case, the gift deed was executed on 19-12-1963,
that is much before 26-09-1970 – Therefore, s.6 of the Ceiling Act
of 1973 does not affect the transfer of land by the appellant-donor D
in favour of the donee-son – Also, there is no finding that the gift
deed in this case was actuated upon any extraneous consideration
– Hence, it constituted a bona fide transfer which are exempted
from the rigors of s.6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
Words and Phrases: Word ‘acceptance’ – Meaning of. E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 confers
upon the State Government the power to re-open the cases, if it
is satisfied that the earlier order was in contravention with the
provisions of the Act and is prejudicial to the State interest. The F
said direction to re-open cases must be preceded by a show-
cause notice served upon the person concerned. However, the
proviso clause states that no notice can be issued after the expiry
of five years from the date of the final order sought to be re-
opened or after the expiry of 30th June 1979, whichever is later. G
Therefore, the relevant dates for determination of the issue of
limitation is the date of order sought to be reopened and the date
of issuance of show-cause notice under Section 15 of the Ceiling
Act of 1973. The respondents brought to notice the xerox copy
of the Notice dated 20.11.1976 issued by Deputy Government
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A Secretary, Revenue (Billing), Rajasthan. The aforesaid notice was
sent to the appellant on 20.11.1976, that is within five years of
the earlier order dated 15.04.1972. Further, the notice also
satisfied the requirements as provided under Section 15 of the
Ceiling Act of 1973, and hence was valid in the eyes of law. The
case was, thus, re-opened within the time period stipulated under
B
Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16][855-
C-H]
2.1 Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
provides that for a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature
and must be made voluntarily. The said giving away implies a
C complete dispossession of the ownership in the property by the
donor. Acceptance of a gift by the donee can be done anytime
during the lifetime of the donor. Section 123 provides that for a
gift of immovable property to be valid, the transfer must be
effectuated by means of a registered instrument bearing the
D signature of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses.
[Paras 20, 21][856-G-H; 857-A]
Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas
Maganlal Thakker (1997) 2 SCC 255 : [1996] 5 Suppl.
SCR 780 – referred to.
E 2.2 Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 neither
defines acceptance, nor does it prescribe any particular mode for
accepting the gift. The word acceptance is defined as “the receipt
of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as
acceptance of a gift.”The said fact can be ascertained from the
F 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. Hence, being an act of receiving willingly,
acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee.
G [Paras 24-27][857-F-H; 858-A]
Asokan v. Lakshmikutty (2007) 13 SCC 210 – referred
to.
Ramanatha P. Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., page
19 – referred to.
H
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 849
RAJASTHAN & ORS
2.3 The recitals in the gift deed indicated that donor intended A
to part with ownership and possession immediately after the
execution of the gift deed. The Mutation entry in the Revenue
Record 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. Furthermore, the statement
B
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. This statement of the appellant-
donor is completely supported by the statement made by the C
donee 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. Therefore, these
D
circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of
the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. [Paras
28-31][858-G-H; 859-A-D]
2.4 The respondents failed to bring on record any evidence
to rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property.
In light of the same, the Single Judge Bench took a plausible E
view that, it was a transfer between a father and a son and there
was a valid acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started
living separately. Lastly, it ought to be noted that apart from the
point of acceptance by the donee as held above since the deed is
registered, bears the signature of the donor and has been attested F
by two witnesses, the requirements under Section 123 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 have been satisfied. [Para 33][859-
E-G]
3.1 Section 30C provides that for a family consisting of five
or less members, the ceiling area would be thirty standard acres. G
When a family exceeds five members, five acres of ceiling area
shall be extended for every additional member, however, such
area cannot extend beyond sixty standard acres. The appellant
admittedly was having a family of less than five members and was
originally holding around 34.4 standard acres. Subsequently, by
H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A virtue of registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963, the appellant had
transferred around 17.25 standard acres to his son. [Paras 35,
38][860-C; 862-B-C]
3.2 Section 30D provides that any transfer, on or after
25.02.1958, other than the ones provided in sub-section 1(i) and
B 1(ii) shall be deemed to have been entered to defeat the purpose
of Ceiling Act. Such transactions were declared to be void. The
aforesaid two exceptions being transfer by partition and transfer
to a landless person. However, Section 30DD provides further
exceptions to Section 30D as it recognizes certain transfer after
the cut-off date provided under Section 30D. Section 30DD
C recognizes transfers of area up to 30 standard acres made in
favour of an agriculturalist, his son or brother who are capable of
doing agriculture and also intend to take up agriculture as a
profession. However, such transfer must have been made before
31.12.1969 and the transferee must have attained the age of
D majority on or before the aforesaid date. [Paras 39 and 40][862-
C-E]
3.3 The legislature has carved out two separate categories
of lands, one which is includible and other which is outside the
purview of ceiling laws. Once such a classification has been made,
E with there being no challenge to its vires, it is the solemn duty of
every authority to give full effect to the same, in both letter and
spirit. Although, it is possible that there can be a voluntary transfer
which would meet the qualifications of both Sections 30D and
Section 30DD, however, it is significant to note that Section 30DD
opens up with a non-obstante clause with overriding effect on
F Section 30D, as a result of which, any land included within its
purview would be protected from the rigors of Section 30D of the
Tenancy Act of 1955. Therefore, if the appellant succeed in its
endeavor to establish that the transfer was covered under Section
30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, then such transferred land has
G to be exempted from computation of confiscable land, irrespective
of the fact that it falls within the ceiling limit as prescribed under
Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955. [Para 43][863-B-D]
3.4 Another significant piece of evidence is the statement
of the transferor-appellant dated 31.08.1984, wherein he has
H
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 851
RAJASTHAN & ORS
stated that the transferee-son was living separately and was A
cultivating the aforesaid gifted property. It is also mentioned that
the transferee is in possession of an ox and equipments for
ploughing and agriculture. The aforesaid facts have been
reiterated by the transferee as well vide his statement dated
15.12.1988, wherein he has clearly stated that, he is in
B
independent possession of the gifted property and has been
cultivating the said land. The aforesaid pieces of evidence clearly
indicate that due to certain family issues, the appellant and his
son were living separately. During such separation, when the
transferee-son had already attained the age of majority, the
appellant-owner of the land, who was an agriculturalist himself, C
transferred the aforesaid land in favour of his son, so as to enable
him to cultivate the same. The statements of transferor and the
transferee clearly indicate that the transferee had the equipment
and skills and was sustaining himself as an agriculturalist. [Paras
44, 45][863-E-G]
D
3.5 Lastly, it must be taken into consideration that, the
aforesaid transfer was executed way before the cut-off date
stipulated under Section 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969. Therefore, the
registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer
squarely covered within the ambits of Section 30DD, which
intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists. The transfer of E
the land being valid under Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of
1955, the ceiling area of the appellant falls within the ceiling limit
as provided under Section 30C. [Paras 46, 47][863-H; 864-A-C]
3.6 There is no gainsaying that Section 6 of the Ceiling Act
of 1973 also does not advance the case of the State. Firstly, the F
repeal of Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act of 1955 through Section
40 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 is not retrospective. Hence, the
provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973 are not attracted in the
present case as the case was re-opened and decided under the
provisions of the of Tenancy Act of 1955. Secondly, Section 6 of G
the Ceiling Act of 1973 declares that every transfer of land
including by way of gift, made on or after 26-09-1970 and before
01-01-1973, shall be deemed to have been made to defeat the
provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973. In the instant case, the gift
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A deed was executed on 19-12-1963, that is much before 26-09-
1970. Therefore also, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 does
not affect the transfer of land by the appellant-donor in favour of
the donee-son. Thirdly, there is no finding that the gift deed in
the present case was actuated upon any extraneous consideration.
Hence, it constitutes a bona fide transfer which are exempted
B
from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. [Para
48][864-C-F]
Case Law Reference
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 780 referred to Para 22
C (2007) 13 SCC 210 referred to Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5650
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2008 of the High Court
D of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
264/1999(Writ).
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr.Adv., Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Gp. Capt.
Karan Singh Bhati, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
25.04.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 264 of 1999 (Writ) wherein
F the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by
the respondents and upheld the order dated 02.07.1990 passed by the
Board of Revenue while setting aside the order dated 02.04.1997 of the
Single Judge.
2. The facts underlying the appeal are as follows: Daulat Singh
G (since deceased and now represented through his legal representatives
and who shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience be referred to as
the appellant) was owner of 254.2 Bighas of land. On 19.12.1963, he
gifted away 127.1 Bighas of land to his son, Narpat Singh. After the said
transfer, the appellant was left with 17.25 standard acres of land, which
H was below the prescribed limit under the Ceiling Act.
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 853
RAJASTHAN & ORS [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
3. Although, a proceeding was initiated under the ceiling law, the A
same was dropped on 15.04.1972 by the Court of Deputy Sub-Divisional
Officer, Pali, Rajasthan. While dropping the proceedings, the Court
observed that, the amendment of Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955 (hereinafter “Tenancy Act of 1955”) was effective from
31.12.1969, and since the gift deed was executed before the aforesaid
B
amendment, the aforesaid transfer was valid.
4. However, by notice dated 15.03.1982, the Revenue Ceiling
Department re-opened the case of the appellant. The Revenue Ceiling
Department while issuing the aforesaid notice stated that the earlier
order dated 15.04.1972, passed by the Court of Deputy Sub-Divisional
Officer, Pali was rendered without investigating whether the land transfers C
are recognizable as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Tenancy Act
of 1955. The same being in contravention of the provisions, needs to be
reopened.
5. The Court of Additional District Collector, Pali vide order dated
28.10.1988, declared that the mutation of the land done in favour of the D
son of the appellant was invalid as there was no acceptance of the gift.
It was declared therein that the appellant was holding 11 standard acres
of extra land over and above the ceiling limit. The Collector, therefore,
directed the appellant to handover vacant possession of the aforesaid 11
standard acres of extra land to the Tahsildar, Pali. E
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 02.07.1990, the
Board of Revenue, modified the earlier order dated 28.10.1988, and
upon re-calculation held that the appellant is holding 4.5 standard acres
of land in excess of the ceiling limit. F
7. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 before the High Court. Vide order
dated 02.04.1997, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed
the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The Court held that the case
was beyond the purview of Section 6 of The Rajasthan Imposition of G
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter “Ceiling Act of
1973”) because the land was transferred by way of gift before
26.09.1970. It was further held that the aforesaid transfer of land, by the
appellant in favour of his son by virtue of a registered gift deed, being
bona fide, was valid in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge,
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A therefore held that there is no surplus land which is available with the
appellant which can be resumed.
8. Thereafter, the respondents preferred an appeal against the
above order before the Division Bench, which allowed the appeal holding
that the gift deed was invalid as the son of the appellant was unaware
B about the same. The Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated
25.04.2008, held that the learned Single Judge passed the judgment in
ignorance of the provisions of Section 30C and 30D of the Tenancy Act
of 1955. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the
order passed by the Single Judge Bench for being untenable and upheld
the order passed by the Board of Revenue.
C
9. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal by
way of Special Leave Petition before this Court.
10. The counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the transfer
of land was effectuated way back in 1963. The Division Bench clearly
D erred in not recognizing the transfer of 17.25 acres in favor of the
appellant’s son Narpat Singh, who was a major at the time the gift deed
was executed, during his lifetime, as per the requirements of Section
122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. There was an implied
acceptance because this is a case of transfer between father and son.
On the basis of facts of this case, it is proved that the son was living
E separately with his family. Moreover, such a transfer does not violate
the provisions of Section 30C and Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of
1955. Lastly, the counsel also pleaded that the notice given for reopening
of the ceiling case was beyond the period of limitation.
11. On the other hand, the counsel on behalf of the Respondents
F argued that the Division Bench rightly upheld the order passed by the
Board of Revenue which was passed after detailed assessment of the
facts and appropriate reliance upon Section 30C and 30D of the Tenancy
Act of 1955. The respondents submitted that the findings of facts could
not be interfered with in a writ proceeding. The respondents also stated
G that, issue of limitation was never argued by the appellant in the Courts
below. Be that as it may, the notice was issued within the limitation
period.
12. Having heard the learned counsel, three important issues arise
for our consideration:
H
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 855
RAJASTHAN & ORS [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
i. Whether reopening of the case was beyond the period of A
limitation?
ii. Whether the registered gift deed executed by the appellant is
valid in the eyes of law?
iii. Whether the judgment of learned Single Judge is in ignorance
of the provisions of Sec 30C and 30D of the Tenancy Act of B
1955?
ISSUE NO.1
13. Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 confers upon the State
Government the power to re-open the cases, if it is satisfied that the C
earlier order was in contravention with the provisions of the Act and is
prejudicial to the State interest. The aforesaid direction to re-open cases
must be preceded by a show-cause notice served upon the person
concerned. However, the proviso clause states that no notice can be
issued after the expiry of five years from the date of the final order
sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of 30th June 1979, whichever D
is later.
14. Therefore, the provision mandates that, after the expiry of
five years from the date of final order sought to be re-opened, or after
the expiry of 30th June 1979, whichever is later, no notice for re-opening
of such cases can be issued. Therefore, the relevant dates for E
determination of the issue of limitation is the date of order sought to be
reopened and the date of issuance of show-cause notice under Section
15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
15. During the course of the hearing and on a query raised by the
Bench, the respondents have brought to our notice the xerox copy of the F
Notice dated 20.11.1976 issued by Deputy Government Secretary,
Revenue (Billing), Rajasthan.
16. It ought to be noted that, the aforesaid notice was sent to the
appellant on 20.11.1976, that is within five years of the earlier order
dated 15.04.1972. Further, the notice also satisfied the requirements as G
provided under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973, and hence was
valid in the eyes of law. The case was, thus, re-opened within the time
period stipulated under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. Therefore,
issue no.1 is answered in favour of the respondent-State.
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A ISSUE NO.2
17. The High Court, while passing the impugned order, held the
registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 to be invalid on the basis that it did
not meet the requirements as provided under Section 122 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882. The Division Bench while upholding the
B observations of the Board of Revenue, further observed that a perusal
of the gift deed does not show acceptance of gift by the donee, rather it
seems that donee was even unaware of the gift.
18. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides
that:
C 122. “Gift” defined. — “Gift” is the transfer of certain
existing movable or immovable 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
D be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable
of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
19. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides
that:
E
123. Transfer how effected. —For the purpose of making a gift
of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a
registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and
attested by at least two witnesses.
F For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer
may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as
aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may
be delivered.
G 20. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides
that for a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature and must be
made voluntarily. The said giving away implies a complete dispossession
of the ownership in the property by the donor. Acceptance of a gift by
the donee can be done anytime during the lifetime of the donor.
H
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 857
RAJASTHAN & ORS [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
21. Section 123 provides that for a gift of immovable property to A
be valid, the transfer must be effectuated by means of a registered
instrument bearing the signature of the donor and attested by at least
two witnesses.
22. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Naramadaben
Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker, (1997) 2 B
SCC 255 had held that:
6. Acceptance by or on behalf of the donee must be made during
the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
7. It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered
gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the property, C
together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is
divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute
owner of the property.
(emphasis supplied)
D
23. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment
upheld the findings of the Board of Revenue wherein it held that there
was no valid acceptance by the donee. The Additional District Collector
held that there was no semblance of acceptance in the gift deed. On
appeal, the Board of Revenue held that, “it is irrelevant that after the
gift the land remained in possession of the donee or that he got it E
mutated in his name.”. The Division Bench of the High Court, relying
on the aforesaid observation, stated that there was no valid acceptance
as it seems like the donee was unaware about the gift deed itself.
24. At the outset, it ought to be noted that Section 122 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor does it F
prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift.
25. 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, 2 nd Edn., page
19). G
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. H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A 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,
(2007) 13 SCC 210
14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or
B 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
C 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.
D (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
E 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…
F 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
G 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
H drew our attention to the mutation records. The Mutation entry in the
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 859
RAJASTHAN & ORS [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
Revenue Record of Gram Sedriya, District Pali dated 28.10.1968 clearly A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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.
E
33. The respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to
rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property. In light of
the same, the learned Single Judge Bench took a plausible view that, it
was a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid
acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately.
Lastly, it ought to be noted that apart from the point of acceptance by F
the donee as held above since the deed is registered, bears the signature
of the donor and has been attested by two witnesses, the requirements
under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 have been
satisfied. In line with the aforementioned observations, issue no.2 is
answered in favour of the appellant. G
ISSUE NO.3
34. The learned Division Bench, while setting aside the judgment
of the learned Single Judge observed that the learned Single Judge passed
the order in ignorance of the provisions of Section 30C and 30D of the
Tenancy Act of 1955. However, the counsel on behalf of the appellant H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A has argued that the transfer of land made by the appellant to his son
does not violate the terms of Section 30C and Section 30D as contained
in Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act of 1955 (since repealed by the
Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,1973) as
such a transfer satisfies the test of Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of
1955.
B
35. Chapter III B of the Tenancy Act of 1955, comprising of
Sections 30B to 30J deals with restrictions on holding land in excess of
ceiling limit. Section 30C indicates the extent of ceiling area. This section
provides that for a family consisting of five or less members, the ceiling
area would be thirty standard acres. When a family exceeds five members,
C five acres of ceiling area shall be extended for every additional member,
however, such area cannot extend beyond sixty standard acres.
36. Section 30D provides that all transfers, except those which
are specified under sub-section (1) are not to be recognized for
determination of holding with respect to the ceiling area. Thereafter,
D Section 30DD, a subsequent amendment to the Tenancy Act of 1955
provides further exceptions to the general bar under Section 30D.
37. It is pertinent for us to have a look at the relevant Sections
30D and 30DD. The Sections read as follows:
E 30D. Certain transfers not to be recognised for fixing
ceiling area under Section 30C.—
(1) For the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation
to a person under Section 30C, any voluntary transfer effected
by him on or after 25-2-1958, otherwise than-
F (i) By way of partition, or
(ii) In favour of a person who was a landless person before
the said date and continued to be so till the date of transfer,
of the whole or a part of his holding shall be deemed to be a
transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of this Chapter and
G shall not be recognised and taken into consideration; and the
burden of proving whether any such transfer falls under clause
(i) or clause (ii) shall lie on the transferor:
Provided that if by way any such transfer as is mentioned
in clause (ii) land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to the
H
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 861
RAJASTHAN & ORS [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
transferee has been transferred to him, such transfer to the A
extent of such excess shall not be recognised or taken into
consideration for the purpose of this sub-section:
Provided further that no such transfer as is mentioned
in clause (ii) shall also so taken into consideration or recognised
if it has been made after 9-12-1959. B
…
30DD. Certain transfers to be recognized.—
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 30D,
for the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a C
person under Section 30C,-
(i) every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard
acres made by a person upto the thirty first day of
December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled
in Rajasthan or in favour of his son or brother intending D
to take to the profession of agriculture and capable of
cultivating land personally and who had attained the age
of majority on or before the said date; and
(ii) every transfer to the extent as aforesaid made by a person
before the first day of June, 1970 of land comprised in groves
E
or farms of the nature referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d) and
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 30-J as it stood prior to the
commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second
Amendment) Act, 1970 and acquired before the first day of
May, 1959 in favour of his son or brother fulfilling the conditions
mentioned in clause (i) and who attains the age of majority on F
or before the first of the aforementioned dates, shall also be
recognized.
Explanation - I The expression “agriculturist” in this section
shall mean a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly
from agriculture and cultivates land by his own labour or by G
the labour of any member of his family or along with such
labour as aforesaid with the help of hired labour or servant on
wages payable in cash or in kind and shall include an agricultural
labourer and a village artisan.
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A II. The expression “domiciled in Rajasthan” in this section shall
mean a person who permanently resides in Rajasthan since
before the commencement of this Act.
38. As discussed earlier, Section 30C of the Tenancy Act of 1955
provides for the ceiling limit of 30 standard acres for a family of five
B members or less. The appellant admittedly was having a family of less
than five members and was originally holding around 34.4 standard acres.
Subsequently, by virtue of registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963, the
appellant had transferred around 17.25 standard acres to his son.
39. Section 30D provides that any transfer, on or after 25.02.1958,
C other than the ones provided in sub-section 1(i) and 1(ii) shall be deemed
to have been entered to defeat the purpose of ceiling act. Such
transactions were declared to be void. The aforesaid two exceptions
being transfer by partition and transfer to a landless person.
40. However, Section 30DD provides further exceptions to Section
D 30D as it recognizes certain transfer after the cut-off date provided
under Section 30D. Section 30DD recognizes transfers of area up to 30
standard acres made in favour of an agriculturalist, his son or brother
who are capable of doing agriculture and also intend to take up agriculture
as a profession. However, such transfer must have been made before
31.12.1969 and the transferee must have attained the age of majority on
E or before the aforesaid date.
41. In the present case, the respondents have submitted that the
transfer is barred under Section 30D, therefore the State has a right of
resumption over the excess area of 4.5 acres as per Section 30C. On
the contrary, the appellant has argued that the transfer was protected
F under Section 30DD.
42. Our attention is drawn again to the registered gift deed dated
19.12.1963. The gift deed itself contains the recitals that
“…The aforesaid land which is of my khatedari (ownership) and
on which I am carrying out cultivation and is in my possession.
G
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.…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
H
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. THE STATE OF 863
RAJASTHAN & ORS [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
from today onward. Now you get the gifted land mutated in A
your name.”
(emphasis supplied)
43. It is, thus, apparent that the legislature has carved out two
separate categories of lands, one which is includable and other which is
outside the purview of ceiling laws. Once such a classification has been B
made, with their being no challenge to its vires, it is the solemn duty of
every authority to give full effect to the same, in both letter and spirit.
Although, it is possible that there can be a voluntary transfer which
would meet the qualifications of both Sections 30D and Section 30DD,
however, it is significant to note that Section 30DD opens up with a C
non-obstante clause with overriding effect on Section 30D, as a result
of which, any land included within its purview would be protected from
the rigors of Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955. Therefore, if the
appellant succeed in its endeavor to establish that the transfer was covered
under Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, then such transferred
land has to be exempted from computation of confiscable land, irrespective D
of the fact that it falls within the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section
30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955.
44. Another significant piece of evidence is the statement of the
transferor-appellant dated 31.08.1984, wherein he has stated that the
transferee-son was living separately and was cultivating the aforesaid E
gifted property. It is also mentioned that the transferee is in possession
of an ox and equipments for ploughing and agriculture. The aforesaid
facts have been reiterated by the transferee as well vide his statement
dated 15.12.1988, wherein he has clearly stated that, he is in independent
possession of the gifted property and has been cultivating the said land. F
45. The aforesaid pieces of evidence clearly indicate that due to
certain family issues, the appellant and his son were living separately.
During such separation, when the transferee-son had already attained
the age of majority, the appellant-owner of the land, who was an
agriculturalist himself, transferred the aforesaid land in favour of his G
son, so as to enable him to cultivate the same. The statements of
transferor and the transferee clearly indicate that the transferee had the
equipment and skills and was sustaining himself as an agriculturalist.
46. Lastly, it must be taken into consideration that, the aforesaid
transfer was executed way before the cut-off date stipulated under
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A Section 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969. Therefore, the registered gift deed dated
19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits
of Section 30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists.
Issue no. 3, stands answered in favour of the appellant, as the transfer is
not invalid as it stands protected as per the provision of Section 30DD of
the Tenancy Act of 1955.
B
47. In light of the aforesaid findings, the decision rendered by the
Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside. The transfer
of the land being valid under Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955,
the ceiling area of the appellant falls within the ceiling limit as provided
under Section 30C.
C
48. There is no gainsaying that Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of
1973 also does not advance the case of the State. Firstly, the repeal of
Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act of 1955 through Section 40 of the
Ceiling Act of 1973 is not retrospective. Hence, the provisions of the
Ceiling Act of 1973 are not attracted in the present case as the case was
D re-opened and decided under the provisions of the of Tenancy Act of
1955. Secondly, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 declares that every
transfer of land including by way of gift, made on or after 26-09-1970
and before 01-01-1973, shall be deemed to have been made to defeat
the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973. In the instant case, the gift
E deed was executed on 19-12-1963, that is much before 26-09-1970.
Therefore also, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 does not affect the
transfer of land by the appellant-donor in favour of the donee-son. Thirdly,
there is no finding that the gift deed in the present case was actuated
upon any extraneous consideration. Hence, it constitutes a bona fide
transfer which are exempted from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling
F Act of 1973.
49. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
G Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "agricultural holdings"Sign in to search