Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In the matter of Philip John Plasket Thomas v.

Commissioner of Income­tax, Culcutta3 the Supreme Court has held that gift can be made subject to conditions, either precedent or subsequent and held as under:­ 2 (2014) 9 SCC 445 3 AIR 1964 SC 587 "12.......A gift may be made subject to conditions, either precedent or subsequent. A condition precedent is one to be performed before gift takes effect; a condition subsequent is one to be performed after the gift had taken effect, and, if the condition is unfulfilled will put an end to the gift........."

19. In the matter of Tila Bewa v. Mana Bewa7 the law relating to revocation of gift upon breach of condition of gift was succinctly stated in following terms:­ "The well settled legal position, based on authorities, is that a gift, subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor, cannot be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act for failure of the donee to maintain the donor, firstly for the reason that there is no agreement between the parties that the gift could be either suspended or revoked; and secondly, this should not depend on the will of the donor; again, the failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by her in the document is not a contingency which should defeat the gift; all that could be said is that the default of the donee is that behalf amounts to want of consideration; Section 126 thus provides against the revocation of a document of gift for failure of consideration; if the donee does not maintain the donor as agreed to by the donee, by latter (donor) could take proper steps to recover maintenance; 7 AIR 1962 Orissa 130 it is not open to a settler to revoke a settlement at his will and pleasure and he has got to get it set aside in a court of law by putting forward such pleas as bear on the invalidity of a deed of gift. Under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift is complete when it is accepted by or on behalf of the donee; where there is evidence that the gift of property by a person to his wife and children was accepted by the donees, the fact, that the donor, who had no other property, stayed on the property, even after the gift, does not show that the gift had not taken effect; where no right in the property is reserved in the fact that there is a clause in the deed (as in the present case) that the donee should maintain the donor, does not show that the donor continued to be the beneficial owner; a direction in a gift deed that the donee should maintain the donor till his death will not make the gift a conditional one; if the terms of the gift deed were, that there had been an absolute transfer of the property in favour of the donee, such a direction for maintenance shall be regarded only as an expression of pious wish on the part of the donor.

20. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Sehdev Singh Verma (supra) has considered the question of revocation of gift upon breach of condition of gift and held as under:­ "40. To put it pithily, the position regarding revocation of gift upon breach of condition of gift is this: "there must be a defeasance or default clause in order to make the gift revocable; if there was a condition that on failure to perform any of the conditions the gift will be void; then certainly the gift could have been revoked; but the gift could not be revoked where the document does not make any provision to that effect."

25. Apart from this, under Section 126 of the TP Act, revocation of gift is an act of donor. It ought to have been expressly revoked by the plaintiffs before filing the suit, if any, if as per terms and conditions of the gift, the gift is revocable. What has been alleged in the plaint that the purpose of gift has came to an end, whereas it could have been revoked, if any.

The fact remains that neither gift has been revoked under Section 126 of the TP Act nor condition of gift has been violated by using the said land for other than Mandi purposes for what it has been gifted by the then donor late Shri Thakur Vishwaraj Singh and according to the defendants, it is still reserved for Mandi purposes i.e. establishment of laboratory, research centre and rest house etc., as such, the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that condition of gift (Ex.P­1) has been violated and gift would stand revoked and consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration of title and possession. Concludingly, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is hereby set aside and that of the trial Court is restored by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and resultantly, the plaintiff's suit would stand dismissed.