Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Property Possession Suit — Gift Deed Lacking Delivery and Acceptance of Possession Not a Valid Gift Under Transfer of Property Act. Reservation of Life Interest and Retention of Possession by Donor Constitutes Licence, Not Gift, Under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated March 17, 1995 in Second Appeal No. 358 of 1994. The appellant, Baby Ammal, was the admitted owner of property bearing Survey No. 1960/6 in Chettivilakam Village, Trivandrum District. She had filed a suit for possession and a declaration that the respondent, Rajan Asari, was a licensee in respect of the property. The trial court decreed the suit on November 3, 1981, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal on July 22, 1993. However, the High Court in second appeal reversed the decrees, holding that the appellant had executed a gift deed on October 11, 1966 under Exhibit A-1 and that the respondent had become the owner and remained in possession. The Supreme Court examined the recitals in the deed, which stated that all rights to enjoy the property and reside in the building would remain with the appellant during her lifetime, and that the respondent would derive those rights with full freedom after her lifetime. The Court reasoned that under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift must divest the donor of title and possession and vest them in the donee, and under Section 123, delivery and acceptance of possession must be proved. The recitals showed that the appellant retained title and possession as full owner during her lifetime, and there was no acceptance of possession by the respondent. Consequently, the instrument could not be construed as a gift deed; at best, it was a licence in favour of the respondent to remain in possession jointly with the appellant. The Court held that the High Court was not right in concluding that Exhibit A-1 was a gift deed and that the appellant had no title. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and order, confirmed the trial court and first appellate court decrees, confirmed the decree for mesne profits granted by the High Court to that extent, and granted the respondent six months' time to vacate the premises. No order as to costs was made.

Headnote

A) Transfer of Property - Gift - Essential Requirements - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 122, 123 - The instrument Ex.A-1 dated 11.10.1966 reserved to the appellant the right to enjoy the property and reside in the building during her lifetime, with full rights to the respondent only after her lifetime; no delivery or acceptance of possession by the respondent was established - For a valid gift, the donor must divest title and possession and vest them in the donee, and acceptance of possession by the donee is necessary; here both title and possession remained with the appellant - The Supreme Court held that Ex.A-1 could not be construed as a gift deed; at best it was a licence in favour of the respondent to remain in possession jointly with the appellant. Held that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings, and the appeal was allowed with restoration of the trial court and first appellate court decrees, while confirming the mesne profits decree and granting six months' time to vacate (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Ex.A-1 dated 11.10.1966 constituted a valid gift deed under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 when the executant retained title and possession during her lifetime and there was no acceptance of possession by the intended donee, or whether it was at best a licence.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court confirmed; decree of mesne profits granted by the High Court confirmed; respondent granted six months' time to vacate; no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Gift under Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 requires divesting of title and possession by donor and vesting in donee
  • delivery and acceptance of possession are essential
  • retention of title and possession during donor's lifetime and no acceptance by donee mean no gift
  • instrument is at best a licence for joint possession
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1996 LawText (SC) (12) 114

1996-12-02

K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati

Baby Ammal

Rajan Asari

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for possession and declaration that respondent was a licensee; appeal by special leave against High Court's second appellate reversal.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought possession of property and declaration that respondent was licensee; before Supreme Court, sought restoration of trial court and first appellate court decrees.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed ownership of property and alleged respondent was licensee; respondent relied on gift deed Exhibit A-1 dated 11.10.1966.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed suit on 03.11.1981; first appellate court dismissed appeal on 22.07.1993; Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No.358 of 1994 reversed on 17.03.1995, holding Exhibit A-1 was a gift deed.

Issues

Whether Exhibit A-1 dated 11.10.1966 was a valid gift deed under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 when the donor retained title and possession during her lifetime and no acceptance of possession by the donee was proved. Whether the High Court was right in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court on the nature of the instrument.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant contended that the deed reserved title and possession with her during her lifetime and hence did not constitute a gift. Respondent's case, accepted by the High Court, was that the document dated 11.10.1966 was a gift deed making him owner.

Ratio Decidendi

An instrument which reserves lifetime enjoyment and possession to the executant and shows no delivery or acceptance of possession by the intended transferee does not satisfy the requirements of a gift under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; at best it creates a licence for joint possession. The donor must divest title and possession and the donee must accept possession for a valid gift.

Judgment Excerpts

All the right to enjoy the property and the right to reside in the building will remain with me during my life time and Rajan Asari will derive the said rights with full freedom after my life time. It cannot be construed to be a gift deed in favor of the respondents. At best, it would be only a licence in favour of the respondent to remain in possession jointly with the appellant.

Procedural History

Appellant filed suit for possession and declaration; trial court decreed on 03.11.1981; first appeal dismissed on 22.07.1993; Kerala High Court allowed second appeal on 17.03.1995 reversing; Supreme Court allowed appeal by special leave on 02.12.1996.

Acts & Sections

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 122, 123
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Assessment Order in MVAT Act Case Due to Limitation Bar and Violation of Natural Justice. Assessment Order Passed After Four-Year Limitation Period and Without Granting Personal Hearing Despite Request.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Action. Plaintiff's prior adoption and use of 'HOM' as acronym for 'House Of Mandarin' in restaurant services established, and defendant's adoption found not honest...