If, his mother A makes a gift and the donee her son accepts the gift though the donor reserving the right of delivery of imovable property posrtponed to the donee after her life time as per the provisions of transfer of property act the gift deed is valid even though the donor reserved to himslef the right of possession with a view to trtransfer it after his life time by delivery to the donee her son.A gift deed thus vslidly made and registered cannot be revoked by A and B.But AnndB are absolute owners of the property cannot cheatC who has been given power to C AS GPA HOLDER AND TRANSFER THE PROPERTY BY SALE,If he bought the property himself; by giving adequate oconsideration to B by converting GPA into Regd SALE DEED in the said sale no consideration pssed between Band C the sale is void and th e property reverts to B and in pursuance of slae C got mutation of hisname in the gram pnchayat records. is valid.If appreciate this answer please click the thank you button on this forum.
Now let u ssee transfer of property [provisions and aso the supreme couurt deciison on ths point of gift without transferring posesssion of immovable proerty when donor out of natural love and affection transfers the property to donee and the donee, his close blood relation accepts that property although without deleivery of possession in case of immovable prorty constiturtes a valid gift and it cannot be revoked.
The asupreme court in the following case of Renikuntla Rajamma v Sarvanamamu has laid down the following ratio.
March, 1986 executed by the defendant-appellant purporting
to revoke a gift deed earlier executed by her was null and void.
The plaintiff’s case as set out in the plaint was that the gift deed
executed by the defendant-appellant was valid in the eyes of law
and had been accepted by the plaintiff when the donee-
defendant had reserved to herself during for life, the right to
enjoy the benefits arising from the suit property. The purported
revocation of the gift in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in
terms of the revocation deed was, on that basis, assailed and a
declaration about its being invalid and void
ab initio
prayed for.
3.
The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant herein
on several grounds including the ground that the gift deed
executed in favour of the plaintiff was vitiated by fraud, mis-
representation and undue influence. The parties led evidence
and went through the trial with the trial Court eventually holding
that the deed purporting to revoke the gift in favour of the
plaintiff was null and void. The Trial Court found that the
defendant had failed to prove that the gift deed set up by the
plaintiff was vitiated by fraud or undue influence or that it was a
sham or nominal document. The gift, according to trial Court,
had been validly made and accepted by the plaintiff, hence,
irrevocable in nature. It was also held that since the donor had
Page
4
4
taken no steps to assail the gift made by her for more than 12
years, the same was voluntary in nature and free from any
undue influence, mis-representation or suspicion. The fact that
the donor had reserved the right to enjoy the property during
her life time did not affect the validity of the deed, opined the
trial Court.
4.
In the first appeal preferred against the said judgment and
decree, the first Additional District Judge, Warangal affirmed the
view taken by the trial Court and held that the plaintiff had
satisfactorily proved the execution of a valid gift in his favour
and that the revocation of a validly made gift deed was legally
impermissible. The First Appellate Court also held that the gift
deed was not a sham document, as alleged by the defendant
and that its purported cancellation/revocation was totally
ineffective. The defendant’s case that she had apprehended
grabbing of the property by Sankaraiah forcing her to make a
sham gift deed was held not established especially when
Sankaraiah had died three years prior to the execution of the
revocation deed by the defendant. If the gift deed was executed
by the donor to save the property from the covetous eyes of
Sankaraiah, as alleged by the defendant, there was no reason
why the defendant should have waited for three years after the
Page
5
5
death of Sankaraiah before revoking the same reasoned the
Court. The first Appellate Court also affirmed the finding of the
trial Court that the donee had accepted the gift made in his
favour. The appeal filed by the defendant (appellant herein) was
on those findings dismissed.
5.
Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below
did not deter the appellants from preferring Civil Second Appeal
No.809 of 2003 in which the appellants made an attempt to
assail the said findings. The High Court, however, declined to
interfere with the judgments and orders impugned before it and
dismissed the second appeal of the appellant holding that the
case set up by the defendant that the gift was vitiated by undue
influence or fraud had been thoroughly disproved at the trial.
The present appeal is the last ditch attempt by the defendants to
assail the findings recorded against them.
6.
When the special leave petition came up for preliminary
hearing before a Division bench of this Court, the only question
which was urged on behalf of the appellant was whether
retention of possession of the gifted property for enjoyment by
the donor during her life time and the right to receive the rents
of the property in any way affected the validity of the gift. That
a gift deed was indeed executed by the donor in favour of the
Page
6
6
donee and that the donee had accepted the gift was not
challenged and the finding to that effect has not been assailed
even before us. So also the challenge to the gift on the ground
of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, having been
repelled by the Courts below, the gift stands proved in all
material respects. All that was contended on behalf of the
appellant was that since the donor had retained to herself the
right to use the property and to receive rents during her life
time, such a reservation or retention rendered the gift invalid. A
conditional gift was not envisaged by the provisions of the
Transfer of Property Act, argued the learned counsel of the
appellant. Inasmuch as the gift deed failed to transfer, title,
possession and the right to deal with the property in absolute
terms in favour of the donee the same was no gift in the eyes of
law, contended learned counsel for the appellant. Reliance in
support of that submission was placed by the learned counsel
upon the decision of this Court in
Naramadaben Maganlal
Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker and Ors.
(1997) 2 SCC 255
.
7.
On behalf of the respondents it was
per contra
argued that
the validity of the gift having been upheld by the Courts below,
the only question that remains to be examined was whether a
Page
7
7
gift which reserved a life interest for the donor could be said to
be invalid. That question was, according to the learned counsel,
squarely answered in favour of the respondents by the decisions
of this Court in
K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & Ors.
(2004) 1 SCC 581
.
8.
Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel upon
Bhagwan Prasad & Anr. v. Harisingh AIR 1925 Nagpur
199
,
Revappa v. Madhava Rao
AIR 1960 Mysore 97
and
Tirath Singh v. Manmohan
AIR 1981 Punj. & Haryana 174
in support of the submission that transfer of possession was a
condition under the Hindu Law for a valid gift which Rule of
Hindu Law stood superseded by Section 123 of The Transfer of
Property Act.
9.
Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with
gifts generally and,
inter alia
, provides for the mode of making
gifts. Section 122 of the Act defines ‘gift’ as a 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. In
order to constitute a valid gift, acceptance must, according to
this provision, be made during the life time of the donor and
while he is still capable of giving. It stipulates that a gift is void if
Page
8
8
the donee dies before acceptance.
10.
Section 123 regulates mode of making a gift and,
inter alia
,
provides that a gift of immovable property must be effected by a
registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and
attested by at least two witnesses. In the case of movable
property, transfer either by a registered instrument signed as
aforesaid or by delivery is valid under Section 123. Section 123
may at this stage be gainfully extracted:
“
123. Transfer how effected
–
For the making of 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.”
11.
Sections 124 to 129 which are the remaining provisions
that comprise Chapter VII deal with matters like gift of existing
and future property, gift made to several persons of whom one
does not accept, suspension and revocation of a gift, and
onerous gifts including effect of non-acceptance by the donee of
any obligation arising thereunder. These provisions do not
concern us for the present. All that is important for the disposal
of the case at hand is a careful reading of Section 123 (supra)
which leaves no manner of doubt that a gift of immovable
Page
9
9
property can be made by a registered instrument singed by or
on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses.
When read with Section 122 of the Act, a gift made by a
registered instrument duly signed by or on behalf of the donor
and attested by at least two witnesses is valid, if the same is
accepted by or on behalf of the donee. That such acceptance
must be given during the life time of the donor and while he is
still capable of giving is evident from a plain reading of Section
122 of the Act. A conjoint reading of Sections 122 and 123 of the
Act makes it abundantly clear that “transfer of possession” of the
property covered by the registered instrument of the gift duly
signed by the donor and attested as required is not a
sine qua
non
for the making of a valid gift under the provisions of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Judicial pronouncements as to
the true and correct interpretation of Section 123 of the T.P. Act
have for a fairly long period held that Section 123 of the Act
supersedes the rule of Hindu Law if there was any making
delivery of possession an essential condition for the completion
of a valid gift. A full bench comprising five Hon’ble Judges of the
High Court of Allahabad has in
Lallu Singh v. Gur Narain and
Ors. AIR 1922 All. 467
referred to several such decisions in
