Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act defines "Gift" as follows:

"122. 'Gift' defined.-- 'Gift' is the transfer of certain existing moveable and immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance when to be made -- Such acceptance must be made during the life time of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.

If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void."

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:

"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.

17. Even regarding the possession also, the trial Court clearly gave a finding that the plaintiff was in possession as evidenced by the record of rights and revenue receipts. In paragraph 33, it took note of the fact that immediately after execution of the registered gift deed vide Ex.A1 and the decree vide Ex.A2 and the record of rights stand in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the fasli patta dated 28-5-1956 for the year 1955-56. Ex.A4 to A19 are the certified copies of the pahanis for the years 1958-59 to 1978-79. These pahanis clearly show that the plaintiffs name has been entered into the record of rights on the basis of the gift deed and the decree and also the possession of the plaintiff was as owner, but when the name of the plaintiff was edited by entering the name of the defendant in the pahanis, the plaintiff made a complaint vide Ex.A26 to the Tahsildhar, Makthal. The said complaint was given under the receipt vide Ex.A27 dated 10-4-1980. He also sent another representation vide Ex.A28 dated 23-5-1980 under the receipt vide Ex.A29. On the basis these complaints, the Tahsildhar directed an enquiry to be conducted by the Revenue Inspector and accordingly the Revenue Inspector submitted a report dated 20-12-1980 vide Ex.A30. The Revenue Inspector reported that it was the plaintiff who was in possession of the property and the entries made in the name of the defendant were wrong. But curiously enough, no further action was taken on the basis of this report till the suit was filed and the record of rights-which were showing the names of the defendants continues inspite of the report of the Tahshildar Ex.A30. The trial Court also took note of the evidence of DW1 that Yellamma filed one petition dated 14-12-1958 vide Ex.B13. But that was stated to be only a copy of the original petition. It is not shown that the same was submitted to the Tahsildhar under any receipt or any acknowledge under and Ex.Bl3 is not bearing the seal of the Tahsildhar Office. Thus on the basis of this evidence on record, the trial Court held that was a make belief document said to be made by Yellamma and no reliance can be placed on the said document. In fact, in this case, the Revenue Inspector who prepared the report vide Ex.A30 was examined as PW7 and he stated that the plaintiff was in possession as on the date he inspected the land. The trial Court also considered the evidence of DW1 that Exs.B4 to R6 the certified copies of pahanis shows that the defendants were purchasers of the land for Rs. 1,900/- from the pattadar-Yellamma privately. But no such private sale deed is produced by DW1. DW1 also admitted that in column No.8 of Ex.B3 the plaintiff is shown as pattadar. It is interesting to note in this case that the defendants have examined. DW4-pahi'ari of Mandipalli village who prepared the original of Ex.B3. He admits that the plaintiff name was also shown as the pattadar in column No.8 of the Ex.B3. For the question of on what basis he entered the name of the defendants, he stated that the Tahsildhar told him to write it in column No.14 and accordingly he wrote it. He also admitted that he has not seen any document for making the entry and he wrote according to his own ideas. He also stated that he did not see the suit land. DW5 who is said to be an Asaldar patwari of seven villages including the Mandipalli village stated that he has seen the land and one Hanumanna was owner and possessor of the suit land and he made certain entries. The Court below in paragraph 34 of its judgment found that on the basis of the evidence of DW4 it is clear that the wrong and false entries were made in Exs.B3 to B6 and B12 in respect of the suit land showing the defendants as pattadars and possessors and share-holders. If that is so, the presumption arising under Section 9 of the Records of Rights stands rebutted since under Section 9 of the Records of Rights the Revenue authorities are entitled to make necessary entries only on the basis of a registered sale deed as per the Government Notification dated 6-6-1962. But DW4 as Patwari has acted quite contrary to the said Government notification and he made certain false entries without verifying the facts. Consequently, the trial Court found that Exs.B3 to B6 are bogus entries. Even otherwise, Exs.B14 to B34 are the revenue receipts but showing the name of the plaintiff in column No.2 as pattadar. Even though PW1 as plaintiff has admitted that he filed one declaration under the Land Reforms Act but the original declaration is not produced in this case and Ex.B30 is not that original declaration so as to accept the contentions of the defendants that in this declaration the plaintiff has shown the names of the defendants in his own declaration. The trial Court also observed that the thumb impression affixed to the declaration is not the one belonging to the plaintiff nor the declaration bears any stamp of office of the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating that the same has been filed by the plaintiff. Consequently, it held that Ex.B39 is also not proved by holding that on the basis of record of rights and receipts produced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has proved the possession over the property and consequently he is entitled to injunction. This finding given in paragraph 34 of the trial Court judgment is not specifically considered by the appellate Court. Even the appellate Court has not repelled any reasons assigned by the trial Court for disbelieving the records of rights standing in the name of the defendants and ultimately holding that the plaintiff has been in possession on the basis of the Ex.Al gift deed and Ex.A2 decree and A3"certified copy of faisal patta for the year 1955-56 and Exs.A4 to Al 9 the certified copies of pahanis and Exs.A22 to A40 the revenue receipts. Therefore, the finding of the appellate Court is vitiated by for non-consideration of the material evidence on record. Thus, it is clear that the appellate Court proceeded on wrong assumption of law that the gift deed made in favour of the minor was void and the acceptance of the gift was not proved on the basis of Ex.A2 decree and other revenue records as I have already referred to above. Thus, there is a legal error as well as factual error in the findings of the appellate Court. In this view of the matter, I have no option but to set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and accordingly I pass the Order as under: