Delivery Of Possession Not Essential To Validate Gift/Settlement; Gift Document Can't Be Unilaterally Cancelled By Donor : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that when a property transfer involves considerations such as love and affection while the donor retains a life interest, it qualifies as a settlement deed in the form of a gift. The Court further clarified that once the donee accepts the gift through the settlement deed, the donor cannot unilaterally revoke it.The Court held that mere reservation of life interest of the donor and the postponement of the delivery of the possession to the donee would not make the document a Will.The Court referred to the settled law that delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement. Upon the retention of the life interest, the donor will continue only as an ostensible owner of the property as per Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act."...delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method. The receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882," the Court observed.The CaseThe bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the case where the suit property was vested with Respondent No.1 (daughter) by her father via a registered settlement deed dated 26.06.1985 out of consideration of love and affection, with the father retaining a life interest and limited mortgage rights. The settlement deed stated that the daughter was permitted to construct the property and pay taxes, indicating immediate rights, and allowed her to possess the property after the parent's death. A dispute occurred when a cancellation deed was executed by Respondent No.1's father revoking the gift to his daughter-Respondent No.1. The father instead executed a sale deed in favor of his son-Appellant. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1-Daughter filed a suit for a declaration of right, title, and interest over the suit schedule property and also for a declaration that the cancellation deed and sale deed dated 19.10.1993 executed by the father in favour of the Appellant was null and void and for consequential injunction. The Trial Court & First Appellate Court held the settlement deed document to be a will, dismissing the daughter's suit challenging the father's 1993 cancellation and sale of the property to the son (appellant). However, the High Court reversed the trial court and first appellate court decisions, declaring the document a gift deed and invalidating the cancellation and sale. Challenging the High Court's decision, the Appellant-Son appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue The question before the Supreme Court was whether the settlement deed executed by the father in her daughter's favor constituted a gift deed, settlement, or will, which would determine its revocability and the validity of subsequent transactions. Decision Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan explained the distinction between the gift deed, settlement deed, and Will before deciding the validity of the father's unilateral revocation of the settlement deed executed in her daughter's favour. The Court said that a gift is a voluntary transfer made without consideration, requiring acceptance during the donor's lifetime. Moreover, registration is mandatory for immovable property, but having possession is not mandatory to qualify as a gift when the donee accepts the gift. Further, when a voluntary transfer is made out of love, care, and affection, which immediately creates rights in the property while reserving a life interest for the transferor, qualifies as a settlement. Moreover, a Will takes effect only after the testator's death and is inherently revocable during the tesator's life time. The Court said that when a document exhibits the nature of a gift and settlement (as in the present case) then it would be considered as a composite document, requiring a harmonious reading to give effect to each and every word and direction in the document. “The contents of the document have to be read as a whole and understood, while keeping in mind the object and intent of the testator. What is not to be forgotten is that in case of a gift, it is a gratuitous grant by the owner to another person; in case of a settlement, the consideration is the mutual love, care, affection and satisfaction, independent and resulting out of the preceding factors; in case of a will, it is declaration of the intention of the testator in disposition of his property in a particular manner. Therefore, even when there is any ambiguity in understanding the nature of the documents from its contents, we are of the view that the subsequent conduct of the executant must also be considered to take a decision. It is possible that in a single document, there could be multiple directions in different clauses though seemingly repugnant but in reality, it could only be ancillary or a...

Delivery Of Possession Not Essential To Validate Gift/Settlement; Gift Document Can't Be Unilaterally Cancelled By Donor : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delivery Of Possession Not Essential To Validate Gift/Settlement; Gift Document Can't Be Unilaterally Cancelled By Donor : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers