Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration representing the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the charity of the petitioners was not an unconditional or unbounded, but it was a conditional gift made in commemoration of their late father for the benefit, exclusively of travailing public, treading into the century old weary and dilapidated Sub-Registrar's office for their transactions and therefore, the respondents have no right or power to profligate the avowed object of the endowment. Taking the Court through the two Gift Deeds dated 24.03.2017 and 05.05.2017, learned counsel would strenuously argue that the gifts were made for a specific object of construction of Sub-Registrar Office but not for any other purpose and in the second gift dated 05.05.2017 it was specifically mentioned that the Registration Department shall construct Type-III Ground + 1 Registration Office in the schedule site, failing which the petitioners can annul the Gift Deeds. Learned counsel would further submit that though a building was constructed as proposed, however, the respondents have not so far shifted the Sub-Registrar's office from the old building to newly constructed building on the flimsy ground that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, A.P., Vijayawada has not so far accorded permission to shift the office and in the meanwhile, as per the instructions of the District Collector, Kurnool, the first floor of the building is proposed to be given to NAC for conducting Skill Development Centre for one year. He would argue that such an attempt on the part of the respondents is nothing but repudiation of their earlier promise to establish Sub-Registrar's office. He would further argue that a conditional gift is in the nature of trust and the donee will be a mere custodian or a trustee to fulfil the object of the trust and he can accept the endowment only upon satisfying the condition otherwise the gift shall fail. On this legal aspect, he proponed State of U.P. v. Bansi Dhar1. He would fairly submit that he is not seeking for annulment of the gifts, but only prays for a direction to the respondents to shift the Sub-Registrar's Office, Dhone from the old building to the newly constructed building. Refuting the allegation in the counter that the benevolence of the petitioners is only in the nature of a general charity or gift and as soon AIR 1974 SC 1084 = MANU/SC/0429/1973 as the Gift Deeds were executed the property vested in the Government and therefore, it can put in use for any public purpose as it considers apposite, learned counsel would vehemently argue that the gift was never intended to be a general charity, but a conditional one and therefore, the respondent authorities cannot use the building for any purpose other than the one for which gifts were made.

11. The point for consideration is whether the gifts executed by the petitioners in this case depict a general charitable intention or a specific and conditional endowment?"

12. POINT: There is, an easily discernable distinction between a general charitable gift and a conditional gift. In the former, the charity is for the general purpose without therebeing any conditions or sanctions. The prime object of the donor is to show benevolence towards public in general. Whereas in the latter, the gift will be wrapped with condition precedent or subsequent. In such a case, the gift can be enjoyed only after fulfilment of such condition.

20. On close scrutiny, the above munificent recitals manifest that the intention of the petitioners was predominantly to donate the land exclusively for the purpose of construction of Sub-Registrar's office to facilitate the public who attend the said office and to preserve the concerned records. Further, the gift was made in favour of Registration Department of the Government and recited that the said Department will become the owner from the date of gift. Therefore, there can be no demur that gift was a conditional gift, but not a general charity.

22. Thus the above Gift Deed recites that in the event the donee failed to construct Type-III Ground + 1 Registrar Office building, the petitioners can cancel the Gift Deed dated 05.05.2017, however, in such an event the donee can construct Sub-Registrar's office in the site earlier gifted to them. So when both the Gift Deeds are cumulatively studied, they would depict that both the sites were given only for construction of Type-III Ground + 1 Registrar Office building. In the event of failure to make such construction, the second Gift Deed will be cancelled by the donors. Thus, in essence, the gifts are in the nature of conditional gifts. The further facts would show that the respondents no doubt have constructed the office building as proposed and also inaugurated the same on 23.02.2019. However, the shifting was not done from the old building on the lame pretext that permission was so far not accorded by the Commissioner & Inspector General for Registration & Stamps. A perusal of the photographs filed by the petitioners along with material papers would show that the existing Sub-Registrar's office is in a dilapidated condition and the safety to the public and staff who attend the said office is highly questionable one. In that view, the respondents cannot postpone the shifting of the Sub-Registrar's office. It should also be noted that since the subject gifts are conditional gifts, the doctrine of cy pres has no application to them. Any deviation of using the building for any purpose other than for housing the Sub-Registrar office and its related establishments, is not permissible. The counter averments that the Sub-Registrar Office was not shifted because the permission is not so far accorded is only truancy on the part of the respondents. When a public are suffering for want of a decent and secured building for conducting registration transactions, the authorities cannot act in a lackadaisical manner to deprive the public of their legitimate right.