Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Swamy Omkar purchased, in his name, two properties i.e., Ac.4.54 and Ac 2.00 cents. He executed a registered Gift Deed on 21.12.1949 in favour of Sri Raghavendra Yogeswarulu, where under, it was mentioned that, if for any reason Raghavendra Yogeswarulu or his disciples failed to perform "Dharmam" in the service of people 3 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 and the peace of universe, the land which was subject matter of the Gift deed has to be delivered back to the plaintiff's society. The Gift Deed did not provide an absolute estate but it is only a conditional gift with a right of reversion to the plaintiff's Santhi Ashram of the properties gifted. Sri Raghavendra Swamy executed a Will on 21.11.1984 bequeathing the property covered by the gift deed of 1949 to the Rama Krishna Mission with certain conditions, but the said Rama Krishna Mission did not accept the gift. Sri Raghavendra Swamy died on 12 12.1991. The defendant is staying in the ashram along with his parents. This defendant is staying himself as an adopted son, but Raghavendra swamy could not have made any adoption as he had renounced. Therefore, the defendant was not an adopted son and the alleged adoption is void under law. The schedule property as per the Gift deed will revert back to the Santhi Ashram. While so, the defendant filed OS.No.252 of 1988 against the third party for permanent injunction. As per the plaint in that suit, it is mentioned that the lands are to be utilized for the purpose of Yogashram and Swamy Raghavendra has no right of alienation.

15. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants is the gift deed is not a conditional gift and it is an absolute gift. Ex.A5 and Ex.B6 are the certified copies of gift deed, the same are one and the same. The said certified copies of gift settlement deed is marked as Ex.B6 by the defendant, and on the plaintiff side, the said gift deed is marked as Ex.A5. It is not in dispute that the Swamy Omkar, founder of Ashramam, purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The recitals of Ex.A5 goes to show that the donor clearly mentioned in the gift deed that it was executed on the request of the donee for the purpose of 9 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 establishing Yogasharamam for Naturopathy treatment, if the donee or his followers does not use the property for the public purpose as stated supra or for service to the patients, it shall be revert back to Santhi Ashramam. Therefore, it is clearly stated in Ex.A5 that if the defendant or his followers failed to perform Dharma by doing service to the people, as stated supra, the said property shall be return back to plaintiff's Ashramam. The plaintiff is a Santhi Ashramam, but not an individual, therefore, the recitals of Ex.A5 i.e., Ex.B6 registered gift settlement deed clearly goes to show that the said gift is a conditional gift.

22. It was pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the gift deed is executed by Swamy Omkar in an individual capacity but the suit is filed by Santhi Ashramam represented by its 17 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 Secretary. The recitals in Ex.A5 gift settlement deed shows the intention of the donor as a founder of Santhi Ashramam that if the donee or his followers does not use the property for public purpose or for service to the patients, the property shall be revert back to Santham Asram. There is a clear recital in the gift settlement deed that if any conditions are violated, the property has to revert back to Santhi Ashramam. The word specifically used in the gift settlement deed that "if conditions are violated", the property has to be reverted back to Santhi Ashramam. Once the donee accepted the registered gift settlement deed, he cannot deny the conditions contained in the gift deed. The material on record goes to show that the premises gifted under the gift deed by the donor to the donee for the purpose of use the property for public purpose and for rendering service to the patients in naturopathy. A superadded condition is made by the donor that if donee or his followers fails to follow the superadded clause, the said property has to be reverted back to Santhi Ashram. The material on record reveals that the defendant violated the conditions in the gift deed.

1938 SCC online Calcutta 265 20 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 Here in the case on hand, as stated supra, in Ex.A5 registered gift settlement deed, there was a clause of superadded condition covered under Section 31 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the gift is not an absolute gift. The donor executed a gift deed by putting some conditions, the donee accepted the gift deed, it includes the conditions also accepted by donee, or his successors in interest. The first appellate Court held in its judgment by giving cogent reasons that the will is to be challenged by the person who was affected by the will and further held that the will cannot be construed that the conditional gift becomes an absolute gift.