9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onees 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess, 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 We must note here that both the donor and the donees were Hindus. 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. There is another aspect to the entire case. What are those conditions of which a violation is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
