Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

From the first part of the definition of 'Gift', it is clear that it is a transfer of certain existing moveable and immoveable property made voluntarily without consideration and such a gift must be accepted by donee himself or somebody on his behalf. From the second part of the definition, it is further clear that such acceptance may be made during the life time of the donor and if the donee died before acceptance the gift is void. In the instant case, the gift deed executed by Yellamma vide Ex. A1 states that "As I have no male or female issues and there are no heirs to me therefore due to natural love I have donated the above land without consideration in favour of above person and have delivered the possession to him to which the donee has accepted it happily. He may possess and enjoy the above land in any manner he likes. I will mutate the patta of donated land in favour of donee through the Revenue Department or through Court. In case of default, the donee has a right and authority to get mutated the patta of donated land through Court. All the rights which were vested in me upto this date shall all be now vested in favour of donee. Except myself, no other person was having any right of succession over donated land." From the above averment in Ex.A1, it is clear that the gift was made in favour of the minor-plaintiff out of love and affection since the donor had no issues. The said document also recites that the donee has accepted the gift happily. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-donee was under the custody of his father. Therefore, the question arises whether the plaintiff being minor could have accepted it? The fact also remains on record that this is a registered gift deed in Urdu and whatever I have extracted above is the English translation of it made in the case. Therefore, the other side issue would be whether at least father accepted the gift. Ex.A2 is the decree passed in OS No.214/1/ 1355-Fasli. The cause title shows that the minor-plaintiff filed the suit for injunction under the guardianship of real father Bheema son of Gokerappa and the suit was filed against Yellamma, wife of Hanumanna, the donor. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the decree, the admission made by Yellamma is noted as under:

From the above extract of the decree., it is clear that the defendant- Yellamma in the said suit consented for decree stating that the property has been gifted to the plaintiff and possession has also been delivered and she had no objection if the patta of the suit land was made in favour of the plaintiff. It is not disputed nor it can be disputed that the said suit was filed by the donee, as I have stated above, under the guardianship of his natural father Bheema. In these circumstances, it is clear that there has been an acceptance of the gift on behalf of the plaintiff by his father. The gift itself shows that the gift has been accepted by the donee. It, prima facie., means that the plaintiffs father has accepted the gift on behalf of the minor-plaintiff. In addition to that, it is clear that the record of rights for the years 1958-59 to 1978-79 vide Exs.A4 to A19 and also certified copy of Sethwar of 133-Fasli of Mandipalli village vide Ex.A20 clearly shows that the plaintiff was put in possession through his father after accepting the gift, and consequently the plaintiff was in possession of the property. Even the revenue receipts vide Ex.A22 to A40 clearly establish that the plaintiff was paying the land revenue through his father. On the basis of Ex.A1 gift deed and Ex.A2 decree and on the basis of the record or rights vide Exs.A4 to A20 and revenue receipts vide Exs.A22 to A40 it can safely be concluded that the gift was accepted by the plaintiffs father on behalf of the minor-plaintiff, and the trial Court did consider this evidence but the appellate Court did not consider this evidence along with Exs.A1 and A2 in order to find out whether really the gift was accepted by the father of the minor-plaintiff when the gift was made.

"A gift may be accepted by or on behalf of a person who is not competent to contract. A minor may therefore be a donee; but if the gift is onerous, the obligation cannot be enforced against him while he is a minor. But when he attains majority he must either accept the burden or return the gift."

In view of this consistent law in India, it is clear that the observation of the appellate Court in paragraph 9 of its judgment that Ex.A1 executed in favour of the minor without guardian is not a valid document. In my opinion, there is no doubt that there can be a gift in favour of a minor. The only thing that required to be done is that the father should accept such gift as his guardian and nothing more. It is so because as per the definition of 'gift' it is transfer without consideration and if that is so, the gift is not a matter of contract between two persons for consideration. The gift is a voluntary gratuitous transfer. Such a gift could be also in favour of a deity or in favour a unborn person. In such cases, the only thing that is required for completion of gift is that some person has to accept the gift either on behalf of the minor or deity. Since it is not a matter of contract, between donor and donee for consideration, the donee can as well be a minor. Therefore, the principle laid down under Section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act that a contract with a minor is void, would not apply to the gifts. In this view of the matter, there can be a gift in favour of the minor without even being represented by guardian. In case of onerous gift, he may return it after attaining majority. As I have already stated above, there should be a guardian or some person who accept the gift on behalf of the such minor. In the instant case, the plaintiffs father was acting as natural guardian and he has accepted the gift on behalf of the minor as evidenced by the decree vide Ex.A2. As per the definition of gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, the acceptance need not be immediate as on the date of execution of the deed. Such acceptance should take place during the life lime of the donor. Exs.A1 and A2 together clearly show that the property was delivered to the donee and the plaintiffs father accepted the said gift on behalf of the minor-plaintiff and it is a registered gift. The decree itself shows that the instrument of gift was also delivered to the plaintiff through his guardian.

The High Court of Patna went further ahead and held in. Samrathi v. Parasuram, ATR 1975 Patna 140, that the fact of handing over the instrument to donee would itself constitute an acceptance of the gift by the donee. The High Court of Patna, in fact, referred to the earlier judgment of the Privy Council and Bombay High Court in coming to the said conclusion. I think it appropriate to extract the relevant part of the said judgment, which is as under:

"8. Mr. Premlal, however, contended that the transfer by way of gift in favour of the plaintiff purported to have been made under the document (Ext.5) was not complete as the same was not accepted by the plaintiff and she herself had stated to this effect in the impugned document (Ext.D). It is true that a transaction of gift in order to be complete must be accepted by the donee during the life time of the donor. The fact of acceptance however, can be established by different circumstances such as by the donee's taking possession of the property or by possession of the deed of gift alone. There are numerous authorities in support of the proposition that if a document of gift after its execution or registration in favour of the donee is handed over to him by the donor which he accepts, it should amount in law to be valid acceptance of the gift. In support of this proposition, Mr. J.C. Sinha relied upon a decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Kalyansundaram Pillcti v. Karuppa Mooppanar, AIR 1927 PC 42. In this case, their Lordships approved the view of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Atmaram Sakharam v. Vaman Janardhan, AIR 1925 Bom 210 (FB), that where the donor of immovable property handed over to the donee an instrument of gift duly executed and attested, it would amount to the acceptance of the gift by the donee and the donor had no power to revoke the gift even if the registration of the instrument had not taken place. This Court also in Ram Chundra Prasad v. Sited Prasa, AIR 1948 Pat. 130, took a similar view and held that the fact of the deed being handed over by the donor to the donee was sufficient evidence of his having accepted the gift, and that the acceptance of the said document was a relevant fact to prove the acceptance of the gift by him. To the same effect is the view of the High Court of Travancore and Cochin in the case of Esakkimadan Pillai v. Esakki Atnwa, AIR 1953 Trav-Co 336. It is not necessary to multiply authorities in support of this proposition. From the above discussion, it must be held that the deed of gift executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff was a valid and binding document resulting in a complete transfer of the interest of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit properties to the plaintiff."