Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Gift, Rejects Resumption Based on Discontinued Services: Naresh Kumari vs. Chameli (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a gift of land, made in lieu of services, can be revoked if the donee or their successors discontinue those services.

CASE TYPE: Civil Law

Case Name: Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. vs. Smt. Chameli & Ors.

Judgment Date: 11 December 2024

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 965

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale. This was a unanimous decision.

Can a gift of land be revoked decades later because the recipients stopped providing services to the donor’s family? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the nature of conditional gifts and the importance of long-term possession. This case revolves around a land dispute where the original owners sought to reclaim land gifted in 1953, arguing that the recipients had stopped providing the agreed-upon services. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, ultimately ruled against the original owners, upholding the gift as absolute.

Case Background

In 1953, Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh gifted 38 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land to Sanwalia, Ratiram, and Sheochand, all sons of Chhailu. This oral gift was made in exchange for services to be rendered by the donees and their heirs to the donor and his heirs for life. The mutation of the land was duly recorded on 13 December 1953, and possession was transferred to the donees on the same day. For 45 years, the donees and their successors enjoyed peaceful possession of the land.

In 1998, the heirs of the original donor, the appellants, filed a suit seeking a declaration and possession of the land. They contended that the gift was conditional on the donees and their heirs providing lifelong services to the donor and his heirs. Since these services were no longer being rendered, the appellants argued that the land should revert to them. The defendants, the successors of the donees, countered that there was no condition for the gift to revert upon the death of the original donees and that they had been providing services. They also argued that the suit was barred by limitation.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the gift was only a life interest and that the land should revert due to the cessation of services. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed these decisions, primarily on the ground of limitation. The High Court also noted that the mutation order did not mention any obligation to serve the heirs of the donor and that the plaintiffs had failed to provide evidence of the specific services that were to be rendered or when they were discontinued. The matter then reached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953: This Act was enacted to implement land reforms by acquiring land from large landowners and redistributing it to the landless. It was in effect during the time the gift was made.
• Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section defines a gift as the transfer of property made voluntarily and without consideration, accepted by the donee. The Court noted that though the Act was not applicable in Punjab in 1953, the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience enshrined in it were applicable.
  
  “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.
• Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section states that a gift of immovable property must be made through a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by two witnesses.
  
  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.
• Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section allows for the suspension or revocation of a gift under certain conditions, but not if the revocation is at the mere will of the donor.
  
  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.
• Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section deals with onerous gifts, where a gift is burdened by an obligation.
  
  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.
• Article 23 of the Constitution of India: This article prohibits forced labor.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the land was gifted to the donees in exchange for lifelong services to the donor and his heirs.
• They contended that since the donees and their successors had stopped providing these services, the land should revert to the donor’s heirs.
• They relied on the clause in the mutation order which stated that if the donees refused to render services, the land would revert to the donor or his heirs.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the gift was not conditional on lifelong services to the donor’s heirs.
• They asserted that they had been providing services to the donor and his heirs until the donor’s family left the village.
• They also argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as they had been in possession of the land since 1953.
• They contended that the gift was an absolute transfer of property with a transfer of interest in favor of the donees and their descendants, with the only exception being the “shamlat land”.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument was based on the condition of services, whereas the respondents’ argument was based on the absolute nature of the gift and the limitation period.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but implicitly addressed the following:

1. Whether the gift of land was conditional on lifelong services to the donor and his heirs.
2. Whether the discontinuation of services would lead to the revocation of the gift.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
4. Whether the condition of lifelong service amounted to forced labor.

The Court also considered, as a sub-issue, whether the gift was an absolute transfer of property with a transfer of interest in favor of the donees and their descendants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Privy Council’s decision in Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee [1870 SCC OnLine PC 21]* was followed, which emphasized that long possession of land weighed against a claim for resumption.
• The principles of justice, equity, and good conscience as cited in Partap Das v. Nand Singh [AIR 1924 Lah 729 (1)]* and Captain Parmodh Singh v. Labh Singh [AIR 1955 P&H 49]* were applied.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Renikuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma [(2014) 9 SCC 445]* was cited to highlight that delivery of possession is not an essential requirement for a valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• The Supreme Court’s decisions in Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char [2023 SCC OnLine SC 358]* and Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 761]* were cited to emphasize that broad principles in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 based on equity, justice, and good conscience are applicable even where the Act is not in force.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific evidence of the services that were to be rendered, and that the long and uninterrupted possession of the land by the donees weighed against the claim for resumption. The Court also highlighted that a condition of perpetual service without remuneration would amount to forced labor, which is unconstitutional under Article 23 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court considered the context of the gift in 1953, during a period of land reforms, where landowners were transferring land to avoid ceiling limits.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal principles. The Court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the long possession of the land by the donees and the lack of specific evidence from the plaintiffs. It also applied legal principles, such as the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, and the constitutional prohibition of forced labor. The Court’s reasoning was more fact based than law based.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the plaintiffs’ argument that the gift was conditional on lifelong services to the donor’s heirs. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, finding that it was not explicitly stated in the mutation order and would amount to forced labor. The Court also considered the context of the gift, which was made during a period of land reforms, where landowners were transferring land to avoid ceiling limits.

The Supreme Court held that the gift of land was an absolute transfer of property, and the plaintiffs’ claim for resumption was not justified. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to provide specific evidence of the services that were to be rendered and that the long and uninterrupted possession of the land by the donees weighed against the claim for resumption. The Court also noted that a condition of perpetual service without remuneration would amount to forced labor, which is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The plaintiffs failed to provide specific evidence of the services that were to be rendered and when they were discontinued.
• The long and uninterrupted possession of the land by the donees weighed against the claim for resumption.
• A condition of perpetual service without remuneration would amount to forced labor, which is unconstitutional.
• The gift was an absolute transfer of property, and the donees had been in peaceful possession of the land since 1953.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

“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 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.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, and the decision was unanimous.

The Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving conditional gifts and long-term possession. It emphasizes the importance of clear and specific conditions in gift deeds and the need for strong evidence to support claims for resumption of property. It also highlights the constitutional prohibition of forced labor and its relevance to conditional gifts.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the importance of equity, justice, and good conscience in interpreting gift deeds and the constitutional prohibition of forced labor.

Key Takeaways

• Gifts of land, once made and accepted, are generally considered absolute transfers of property.
• Claims for resumption of gifted land based on discontinued services require strong and specific evidence of the services and their discontinuation.
• Long and uninterrupted possession of land by the donees weighs against claims for resumption.
• Conditions in gift deeds that amount to forced labor are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
• The principles of equity, justice, and good conscience are important in interpreting gift deeds.

This judgment could impact future disputes involving conditional gifts, particularly in cases where the conditions are vague or amount to forced labor. It reinforces the importance of clear and specific conditions in gift deeds and the need for strong evidence to support claims for resumption of property. The judgment also highlights the constitutional prohibition of forced labor and its relevance to conditional gifts.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a gift of land, made in lieu of services, cannot be revoked decades later based on a vague condition of lifelong service, especially when the donees have enjoyed long and uninterrupted possession. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that conditions in a gift deed must be clear and specific, and any condition that amounts to forced labor is unconstitutional. This case clarifies that the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience are applicable even in cases where the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not directly applicable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court ruled that the gift of land in 1953 was an absolute transfer of property, and the plaintiffs’ claim for resumption was not justified. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to provide specific evidence of the services that were to be rendered and that the long and uninterrupted possession of the land by the donees weighed against the claim for resumption. The Court also noted that a condition of perpetual service without remuneration would amount to forced labor, which is unconstitutional. This judgment provides clarity on conditional gifts and the importance of long-term possession, reinforcing the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience.

Category

Parent Category: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Child Categories:

• Section 122, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Section 123, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Section 126, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Section 127, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Gift
• Conditional Gift
• Onerous Gift
• Resumption of Property
• Limitation
• Forced Labour
• Land Reforms
• Equity, Justice, and Good Conscience

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories:

• Article 23, Constitution of India
• Fundamental Rights

Parent Category: Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953

Child Categories:

• Land Reforms

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Naresh Kumari vs. Chameli case?

A: The main issue was whether a gift of land, made in exchange for services, could be revoked decades later because the recipients stopped providing those services.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the gift in this case?

A: The Supreme Court ruled that the gift was an absolute transfer of property and could not be revoked based on the discontinuation of services. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific evidence of the services and that the long possession by the donees weighed against the claim of resumption.

Q: What does the Supreme Court say about conditional gifts?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that conditions in a gift deed must be clear and specific. Conditions that amount to forced labor are unconstitutional and unenforceable. The Court also emphasized that long and uninterrupted possession of land by the donees weighs against claims for resumption.

Q: What is an onerous gift?

A: An onerous gift is a gift that is burdened by an obligation. Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with onerous gifts. The Supreme Court clarified that a gift conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to forced labor, which is unconstitutional.

Q: What is the significance of long possession in property disputes?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that long and uninterrupted possession of land by the donees weighs against claims for resumption. This means that if someone has been in possession of a property for a long time, it is more difficult for the original owner to reclaim it.

Q: What is forced labor, and why is it relevant in this case?

A: Forced labor is work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty or for which the person has not offered himself voluntarily. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits forced labor. The Supreme Court held that a condition of perpetual service without remuneration would amount to forced labor, which is unconstitutional.

Q: What did the Supreme Court mean by “equity, justice, and good conscience” in this case?

A: The Supreme Court referred to the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, which are used to interpret laws and contracts in a fair and just manner. These principles are particularly relevant in cases where the formal laws may not provide a clear answer.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies that gifts of land, once made and accepted, are generally considered absolute transfers of property. It also emphasizes the importance of clear and specific conditions in gift deeds and the need for strong evidence to support claims for resumption of property. Additionally, it highlights the constitutional prohibition of forced labor and its relevance to conditional gifts.