Holding

The Court held that the alleged condition of perpetual services was not a valid enforceable condition, the plaintiffs failed to prove any breach, and the gift remained an absolute transfer, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

The appellants, heirs of Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh, claimed that a 1953 oral gift of 38 Bighas of land to the respondents was conditional on the donees rendering lifelong services to the donor and his heirs, and that the cessation of such services entitled the donors to resume possession. The trial court and first appellate court held the gift was a life interest and ordered resumption, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside those decrees, citing lack of evidence and limitation. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the alleged condition, the applicability of Sections 126, 127, 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the constitutional prohibition against forced labour. It found that the condition could not be interpreted as a perpetual service obligation, that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proof which they failed to meet, and that the gift was an absolute transfer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the respondents in possession of the land.

Issues considered

The validity and enforceability of a condition in an oral gift requiring perpetual services from the donee and his successors.
Whether Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act permits an onerous gift conditioned on perpetual services.
Whether the alleged condition amounts to forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.
The evidentiary burden on the plaintiff to prove breach of the service condition.
The applicability of limitation statutes to a suit for resumption of gifted land after long possession.

Legislation cited

Punjab Act No. 12 of 1950
Punjab Act No. 5 of 1951
Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 122, s. 123, s. 126, s. 127

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the resumption of onerous gift to heirs of donor when conditions of gift are not fulfilled by heirs of the donee. Headnotes† Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by donor to donee, duly executed and later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees stopped rendering these services, and original donees have

Subjects

English laws of equityOnerous giftResumption of propertyConditions of serviceValid transfer of giftContinued possession for a long timePerpetual rendering of servicesBegarForced labourViolative of fundamental rights

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 693 : 2024 INSC 965

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors.
v.
Smt. Chameli & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8244 of 2009)
11 December 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the resumption of onerous gift to heirs of
donor when conditions of gift are not fulfilled by heirs of the donee.

Headnotes†
Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by
donor to donee, duly executed and possession transferred –
45 years later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for
resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of
services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors
and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees
stopped rendering these services, and original donees have
died, suit land to revert to plaintiffs – Trial court decreed the suit
holding that the subject matter of gift was only a life interest
in suit land and since services had stopped the land was to be
reverted in favour of plaintiffs – First Appellate Court upheld
the same – High Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was
not mentioned in the mutation that the donees had to serve
the heirs of the donor as well and it could be presumed that
proper services were rendered to donor during his lifetime,
and the plaintiffs failed to disclose these services and when
they were stopped – Interference:
Held: Not called for – In case of resumption of land where there
has been long and uninterrupted possession of defendants, strong
evidence is required by plaintiffs seeking a decree of possession –
Plaintiffs case not backed by any plausible evidence – Gift was for
past services but even if it is assumed that it was for some past
and some future services, no occasion for the defendants to render
the services as the plaintiffs-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

* Author
694 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

be justified – There was only a vague and conclusory allegation
that the defendants have discontinued to serve the successors of
the donor-plaintiffs, without any evidence in support of the same –
s.127 permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon
perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would
amount to a begar or forced labour, even slavery and thus, it is
not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative
of fundamental rights of the donees – This so-called rendering
of services, was to be in perpetuity – Thus, the condition as is
being read by the plaintiffs is nothing short of reading forced
labour, as a condition – Meaningful and purposive interpretation
is required – Thus, there was never such a condition of rendering
continuous services in the gift deed and services here meant
only the past services rendered by the donees to the donor, or
at best it may include services to be rendered by the donees
to the original donor, who passed away in the late 1950s – Gift
had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity
as the plaintiffs would like to read s.127 permitting onerous gifts
was not in force as TPA not applicable in erstwhile Punjab – Nor
can it be said that such condition being based on equity, justice
and good conscience can be read into the gift deed as a valid
condition – Stipulated condition of services and the continuation
of the rendering of such services has to be read in the context
when the deed was executed – Services shall be understood
only as past services rendered, or at most, the services which
had to be rendered by the original donees to the original donor
during his lifetime – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.126
and 127. [Paras 10-18]

Case Law Cited
Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedvyasa Char [2023] 6 SCR 359 : 2023
SCC OnLine SC 358; Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh [2024] 5
SCR 1148 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 761 – relied on.
Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee, 1870 SCC OnLine PC 21;
Partap Das v. Nand Singh, AIR 1924 Lah 729 (1); Captain Parmodh
Singh v. Labh Singh, AIR 1955 P&H 49 – referred to.

List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Punjab Security and Land Tenures
Act, 1953; Punjab Act No. 12 of 1950; Punjab Act No. 5 of 1951.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 695

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

List of Keywords
English laws of equity; Onerous gift; Resumption of property;
Conditions of service; Valid transfer of gift; Continued possession
for a long time; Perpetual rendering of services; Begar; Forced
labour; Violative of fundamental rights

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8244 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 934 of 2006

Appearances for Parties
Anoop George Chaudhari, June George Chaudhari, Sr. Advs.,
Irshad Ahmad, Vivek Singh, Onkar Nath, Mrs. Anju Mirdha, Firasat
Ali Siddiqi, Arvind Kumar, Ram Swarup Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Pallav Sisodia, Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Advs., Sandeep S. Tiwari,
Manjul Kumar Tiwary, Ms. Rekha S. Tiwari, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Shubham Bhalla, Yajur Bhalla, Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Ms.
Akansha Gulati, Ms. Ragini Sharma, Mrs. Gauri Bedi, Ms. Ruksana
Khan, Rohit Pandey, Alex Noel Dass, Sumeir Ahuja, Varun Puri,
Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court against the judgement
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 20.08.2009, whereby the
second appeal of the respondents/defendants was allowed and the
concurrent decisions of the courts below, which had decreed the
suit, were set aside.
The facts are as follows:
2. Land measuring 38 Bighas 8 Biswas (hereinafter “suit land”) was gifted
by one Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh (“donor”) to Sanwalia, Ratiram
and Sheochand, all sons of one Chhailu (“donees”) in 1953. The
696 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

oral gift was duly executed and mutation was carried out in favour
of the donees on 13.12.1953. The possession of this land was also
given to the donees on 13.12.1953.
Things remained peaceful, for 45 long years, then a suit was filed in
the year 1998 for declaration and for possession, or more precisely
for resumption of this property. The case of the plaintiffs was that they
are the heirs of the erstwhile donor and that the suit land was gifted
in lieu of the services, which had to be rendered by the donees and
their heirs to the donor and his heirs lifelong. It was then asserted
that since the defendants have stopped rendering these services and
since the original donees have died anyway, the suit land should
revert to the plaintiffs in terms of the gift condition.
These plaint averments were countered in an extremely dull even
unimaginative manner in the written statements of the defendants.
Nevertheless, 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. Even otherwise, they contended that the plaintiffs have no
cause of action as the terms of the gift are being complied with and
the defendants have been rendering “all kind of services”, to the
plaintiffs! It was also asserted that records relating to possession and
ownership of the suit land have been mutated in their favour since
1953 and that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
3. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, concluded that what was
crucial was 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. Consequently, the suit
was held to be within time and as the plaintiffs’ title was proved,
the suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court agreed with these
findings and dismissed the defendant’s appeal!
The High Court though allowed the defendant’s second appeal
and dismissed the suit, largely on the ground of limitation, though
it was, inter alia, also observed 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. Further,
the plaintiffs failed to disclose what these “services” were and when
exactly they were stopped.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 697

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

Apart from making a bald statement in the plaint that the defendants
have stopped rendering services, there is no worthwhile evidence
placed by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. On the contrary, evidence
has been placed by the defendants in form of DW-1 who has stated
that after the death of the donor-Randhir Singh, 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. This
evidence, however, has not been considered either by the Trial Court
or by the First Appellate Court and no reason has been assigned
as to why this was done.
4. At the centre of this dispute lies the oral gift, which came to be
recorded in the mutation order dated 13.12.1953. The same, as
translated to English, is reproduced below:
In a general meeting Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh donor
along with identifier Neki Ram Lambardar who appeared
and made a statement that he has gifted the land
measuring 38 Bigha 8 Biswas in lieu of services till life
to Sanwalia etc. and delivered the possession to them.
if donees refused to render the services in that case the
land shall revert to the donor or to his heirs. Sanwalia,
Rati Ram and Sheo Chand donees are also present who
admit the above statement as correct. As such with the
consent of the parties the land comprised in Khewat No.64,
Khasra Nos. 1169[13-18], 1171[6-11], 1173[7-0], 1174
[10-19] total 38 Bigha 8 Biswas on behalf of Rai Bahadur
Randhir Singh donor in favour of donees Sanwalia, Rati
Ram, Sheo Chand in equal share. Mutation is sanctioned
in favour of donees.
5. Unfortunately, the courts have lost sight of an important aspect here
which has a crucial bearing on the case, which is the background
of the transfer of land made in the year 1953.
The transaction which is the subject matter of the dispute admittedly
occurred in December, 1953. This was the period immediately after
our independence where each State in the country had already
framed or was in the process of framing legislations on land reforms
with a focus on redistribution of land. Since land was in the State list
(List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India), such
legislation was being brought by almost every State in the country.
698 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Punjab was no exception. 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. This was being done as this was the pledge given during
our freedom movement by the leaders to the nation and immediately
after our independence, this was the first task sought to be achieved
everywhere in the country.
The reference in our case would be to the Punjab Security and
Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter “1953 Act”), which had become
effective on 15th April, 1953. Even prior to this, attempts were made
to reform land ownership such as the Punjab Act No.12 of 1950
and the Punjab Act No.5 of 1951, which were repealed by the 1953
Act. 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 surplus land (beyond 30 acres) was to vest with the
State. 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. One thing was clear that technically they would not be able to
keep land beyond the surplus limit.
During this period, gifting, donation or transfer of land in any possible
manner permitted by law was common place, not only in Punjab but
in all parts of the country. We have to examine the present transfer
of land which took place in December, 1953 with this context and
background in our mind. It is true again, that what we have here is a
pure civil matter and considerations as we have just referred above
are outside the scope of pure civil litigation. The answer to this would
be that civil matters will undoubtedly be decided on facts and law as
they exist and as they are applicable, but again in order to appreciate
the facts we have to keep the context in mind. Context is always very
important. The above reference was only with that aspect in mind.
6. Another factor which has an extremely important bearing in this case
and which has again not been satisfactorily dealt with by the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court is the long delay by the plaintiffs in
seeking resumption of their so-called property. It is a settled position
of law that in cases of resumption of land or immovable property
where there has been long and uninterrupted possession of the
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 699

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

defendants, strong evidence is required to be placed by the plaintiffs
to set up a claim, when the plaintiff is seeking a decree of possession.
In this case, the nature of pleadings have already been referred to
in the preceding paragraphs. The entire case of the plaintiffs rests
on the proposition 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. This assertion,
however, is not backed by any plausible evidence. Moreover, this
proposition has legal implications which may go against the plaintiffs.
7. This suit is based on the aforesaid extremely thin proposition of law
and on top of it there is no worthwhile evidence placed by the plaintiffs
in their case, except for their reliance on words and phrases in the
gift deed, to which unfortunately the defendants have also fallen
prey. It is the case of none other but the plaintiffs that the agricultural
land, which was the subject matter of the suit, was given in gift to
the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, but it was not an
unconditional gift. It was an onerous gift with a condition and since
the respondents have violated the conditions of the gift, the land is
liable to be reverted to the plaintiffs. Even if we look at this case
as a land given as a gift to the defendants or their predecessors-
in-interest, the nature of the gift, the context in which it has been
given and the entire accumulating circumstances including the fact
that 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 only exception being that the donees were not given right over
the “common land” of the village, known as “shamlat land”.
8. Now the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short “TPA”) was not
in force in erstwhile Punjab when the gift was executed in 1953,1
yet such provisions in TPA which are based on principles of justice,
equity and good conscience have always been enforced by Courts.2

1 Parts of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 came to be enforced in erstwhile Punjab vide Gazette Notification
No. 1605-R(CH)-55/589 dated March 26, 1955.
2 Partap Das v. Nand Singh, AIR 1924 Lah 729 (1); Captain Parmodh Singh v. Labh Singh, AIR 1955
P&H 49.
700 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

In any case, 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.
Sections 126 and 127 of the TPA where provisions regarding the
suspension or revocation of gifts and onerous gifts is defined
respectively are quoted below:
Section 126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.—
The donor and donee may agree that on the happening
of any specified event which does not depend on the will
of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked, but a
gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or
in part at the mere will of the donor is void wholly or in
part, as the case may be.
A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want
or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract,
it might be rescinded.
Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect
the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.

Illustrations
(a) A gives a field to B, reserving to himself, with B’s
assent, the right to take back the field in case B, and his
descendants die before A. B dies without descendants in
A’s lifetime. A may take back the field.
(b) A gives a lakh of rupees to B, reserving to himself, with
B’s assent, the right to take back at pleasure Rs. 10,000
out of the lakh. The gift holds good as to Rs. 90,000 but
is void as to Rs. 10,000 which continue to belong to A.
Section 127. Onerous gifts.—Where a gift is in the form
of a single transfer to the same person of several things
of which one is, and the others are not, burdened by an
obligation, the donee can take nothing by the gift unless
he accepts it fully.
Where a gift is in the form of two or more separate and
independent transfers to the same person of several
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 701

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

things, the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and
refuse the others, although the former may be beneficial
and the latter onerous.
Onerous gift to disqualified person.—A donee not
competent to contract and accepting property burdened
by any obligation is not bound by his acceptance. But if,
after becoming competent to contract and being aware of
the obligation, he retains the property given, he becomes
so bound.

Illustrations
(a) A has shares in X, a prosperous joint stock company,
and also shares in Y, a joint stock company, in difficulties.
Heavy calls are expected in respect of the shares in Y. A
gives B all his shares in joint stock companies. B refuses
to accept the shares in Y. He cannot take the shares in X.
(b) A, having a lease for a term of years of a house at a
rent which he and his representatives are bound to pay
during the term, and which is more than the house can
be let for, gives to B the lease, and also, as a separate
and independent transaction, a sum of money. B refuses
to accept the lease. He does not by this refusal forfeit
the money.
9. As far back as 1870, the Privy Council in Forbes v. Meer Mahomed
Tuquee, 1870 SCC OnLine PC 21 had an occasion to consider
broadly a similar case, where the appellant/plaintiff sought resumption
of land granted to the defendants. The land was originally granted
on the condition of rendering services, which were to keep off the
incursion of wild elephants and attend to the safety of tenants in
nearby areas. It was the appellants case that since the services
are not required any more as the incursion of elephants has itself
ceased, the land should revert to him as part of their zamindari.
Lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the grounds,
inter alia, that since the defendants therein have ceased to render
the services, the land must revert to the plaintiff therein. This decree
of the lower court was reversed by the High Court and the matter
finally reached the Privy Council where defendants/grantees argued
that they had rendered the services till they were required to do so
702 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and since the elephant incursion has stopped on its own, they are
no longer bound by the condition. Privy Council considered that
grantees had enjoyed peaceful possession of land for a long period
of time and they were in long cultivation of this land, and hence,
the agreement was construed in such a manner that the Sunnad
was “…partly as a reward for past, partly as an inducement for
future, services.”
Similarly in the present case, 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 defendants had
produced their witness DW-1 before the Court who gave the evidence
that the plaintiffs had left the village long ago, immediately after the
death of the Donor, which would be only a few years after the gift
deed was executed in 1953 and therefore, there was no question
of rendering any further service.
10. The conditional oral gift was executed on 13.12.1953 and all land
records pertaining to ownership were transferred in the defendant’s
names along with possession. 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.
11. On a perusal of the material on record, both the plaint and PW-1’s
deposition are conspicuously silent regarding any specific
instances where services were denied by the defendants or their
predecessors-in-interest. There was only a vague and conclusory
allegation that services have been refused, without any evidence in
support of the same.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 703

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

The defendants primarily asserted that they have continued to render
services and did not raise any plea of adverse possession. Their
assertion has to be read only to the extent that they continued to
render services to the donor or even his heirs, till the time they were
physically residing in the village.
12. PW-1 deposed in his cross-examination (on 17.05.2000) that the
donor died some 40 to 45 years back. What this means is that the
donor passed away in the late 1950s soon after the gift was executed
and possession was transferred. However, the plaintiffs only filed
their suit in 1998, around 45 years after the gift’s execution and
around 20 years after the last original surviving donee died during
the 1970s. While the defendants enjoyed uninterrupted possession
throughout this period.
13. Transfer of suit land by way of gift took place in the year 1953 in
Jhajjar district of present day Haryana which at that time was a part
of the erstwhile State of Punjab, where provisions of TPA were not
applicable. All the same, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, even
though TPA was not applicable, what would definitely be applicable
would be the provisions in TPA which are based on the principles
of equity, justice and good conscience.
The admitted case of the plaintiffs is that the land (the subject matter
of the case), was given in gift to the defendants (their predecessors-
in-interest), in the year 1953. But since the condition in the gift was
that the defendants will continue to render services (what was meant
by these ‘services’ has nowhere been explained), and since they are
not providing the services anymore, the land should resume to the
ownership of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs i.e., appellants before this
Court had asserted that their forefathers / predecessors-in-interest
had donated a piece of land to the defendants as a gift which was
an onerous gift with a condition that it is not only being given for past
services but also for future services, the donees and their successors
will continue to provide to the donor and his successors and if the
services stop, the property will revert to the donor or his successors.
Now, since the successors of the defendants have stopped rendering
services as claimed by the plaintiffs, the gift is being revoked. This was
the precise claim set up in the plaint. A banal written statement was
filed by the defendants where it was admitted that their forefathers
were donated this property by the forefathers of the plaintiffs and they
704 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

had a permanent interest in the property, they are its absolute owners.
Moreover, they have continued to render “all kinds of services” to the
plaintiffs and their successors and therefore, there is no question of
property being now revoked in favour of the plaintiffs as no condition
of the gift deed has been breached by them.
14. Now admittedly, the TPA which is of the year 1882 and came to be
enforced on 01st July, 1882 was not applicable to all parts of India.
For our convenience, it must be stated that it was not in force in the
State of Punjab (including the present territory of Haryana) in the year
1953 when the gift deed was executed. Nevertheless, the TPA itself is
a codification of broad principles which were applicable at the relevant
point of time, relating to transfer of property, though after codification
it also has some new provisions, such as registration of gift deed
etc. The TPA was not applicable to Punjab but, as discussed earlier
and also held by this Court in various cases, the broad principles in
TPA based on equity, justice and good conscience, would definitely
be applicable. (See: Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 358 & Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 761)
One of such principles in TPA based on equity, justice and good
conscience is the definition of gift itself which is contained in
Section 122 of TPA and reads as under:
Section 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.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
15. Now 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.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 705

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

Another important factor which must be kept in mind is that in a
case of gift of land, possession has an extremely important bearing.
Although, after the enforcement of TPA, registration became essential
in a gift of immoveable property as the transfer will now be seen in
terms of Section 123 of TPA, which is as follows:
Section 123. Transfer how effected.—For the purpose
of making a gift of immoveable 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.
For the purpose of making a gift of moveable 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.
16. Under TPA a valid gift can be made without giving immediate
possession to the donee as has been held by this Court in Renikuntla
Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC 445 where it was
held that section 123 of TPA supersedes Hindu Law and delivery
of possession is not an essential requirement for the gift to be valid
under provisions of TPA.
Nevertheless, in Punjab and in all other places of North India where
Mitakshara law was applicable, gift of land usually was accompanied
by handing over possession to the donee, as there was no purpose
of enjoying land without being in its possession.3 In other words, in
cases governed by Hindu Law, possession is an extremely important
ingredient where validity of the gift is to be determined. Since TPA
was not in force, delivery of possession which has been done in
the present case has an important bearing. In the present case,
the admitted fact is that the plaintiffs have never questioned the
validity of the gift given by their forefathers to the defendants. Their
entire case, in fact, depends on a valid gift of land of which they
admit possession was also given along with the gift deed in the
year 1953 itself. Their case is that, the gift has to be revoked now
for non-fulfillment of certain conditions. Plaintiffs have also, in other
words, admitted that the defendants are in peaceful possession of
this land since the date of gift.

3 We must note here that both the donor and the donees were Hindus.
706 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

There is another aspect to the entire case. What are those conditions
of which a violation is being alleged? The condition is that the
defendants have discontinued to serve the successors of the donor
i.e. plaintiffs. Can such a condition ever be part of a gift? This is
the first question; the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should
have asked. Although Section 127 of TPA permits an onerous gift
but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services
without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour,
even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even
unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees.
It has to be remembered that this so-called rendering of “services”,
was to be in perpetuity. It has to go on forever. What would this be, if
not “begar” or forced labour. We must also remember that when the
gift deed was executed the Constitution of India had already been
enforced. Article 14 and 21 and more particularly Article 23 prohibits
forced labour. Hence, 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.
But will this make the gift itself void? Our answer would be no. In
this case, the validity of gift was never ever questioned, either by
the plaintiffs or by the defendants. Therefore, a meaningful and
purposive interpretation is required here. The only possible way
therefore where the donees and their successors have continued to
be in peaceful possession of the property for more than 45 years,
is that there was never such a condition of rendering continuous
services in the gift deed and services here meant only the “past
services” rendered by the donees to the donor, or at best it may
include services to be rendered by the donees to the original donor
Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh, who passed away in the late 1950s.
This is the only way it can be construed. In other words, the gift had
no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity as the
plaintiffs would like us to read.
17. We must also remember that Section 127 of TPA, which permits
onerous gifts, was not in force in present day Haryana which was
earlier part of Punjab, as TPA was not applicable there. Nor can
we say that such a condition being based on equity, justice & good
conscience can be read into the gift deed as a valid condition.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 707

Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

The stipulated condition of “services” and the continuation of the
rendering of such services has to be read in the context when the
deed was executed. Thus, services shall be understood only as ‘past
services’ rendered, or at most, the services which had to be rendered
by the original donees to the original donor during his lifetime.
18. Under such facts and circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind
that the plaintiffs had absolutely no case. Hence, the impugned
judgment calls for no interference by us. We accordingly dismiss
this appeal.
19. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand vacated.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain