Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Customary Law of the Kangra District, compiled by L. Middleton, Esquire, I.C.S., Settlement Officer, Kangra District also can be taken note of to solve the controversy between the parties. Question No. 94 can safely be referred to in this regard:

"Question 94 : State in what circumstances a gift is revocable, and in what circumstances irrevocable ? Specify particularly the effects of:
(i) Possession on the part of the donee.
(ii) Relationship between the donee and the donor.

Answer. Conditional gift e.g. in return for services are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled. Otherwise gifts are not revocable. Possession and relationship do not affect this."

12. What is conditional gift has not been explained or elucidated or defined in this customary law. There is no doubl that gift in return of services are revocable, if the conditions are not fulfilled. The answer is silent as to when and under what circumstances the gift would be conditional one. It has not been provided in the answer whether there should be a specific agreement that in case the services where not rendered, as agreed upon, the property shall revert back to the donor or that where the gift for past and future services had been made, non-rendering of services would automatically bring an end to the gift, without there being any specific condition in that behalf.

"5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, brought to my notice that the answer given to question No. 94 in Mid-dleton's Customary Law of Kangra District is different. The answer therein is that the conditional gifts, e.g., in return for services, are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled, otherwise gifts are not revocable. He also relied upon the observation in Mt. Aishan Bibi v. Allah Ditta, that when the original vernacular version and the English version differed slightly, the English version should be prferred on the ground that it is the final draft. The observation was made by Hilton, J. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand, contended that Middleton's book was a digest for the whole of the District of Kangra. It was, therefore, a more general authority while Exhibit D3 was the particular authority for the village Bhabour of Tehsil Hamirpur with which alone we are concerned here. To me, it seems, that there is no real difference between the vernacular and the English versions if we consider all the instances given in both the versions. Even the English version says that only the conditional gifts are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled.
To sum up, the Customary Law as found in the rewaz-i-am of the village (Ex. D3) does not allow revocation of a gift at all, in any circumstances. The Customary Law as reproduced in the answer to question No. 94 in Middleton's Customary Law of Kangra District is that "conditional gifts e.g. in return for services are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled, otherwise gifts are not revocable. The real question for decision is whether the gift embodied in Ex. Dl is a conditional gift within the meaning of the answer to question No. 94 in Middleton's Customary Law. Since the Customary Law does not define "conditional gift", we have to understand this expression in its ordinary meaning. A gift may be conditional in either of the two senses. Either the creation of the interest may depend on the happening of an event when it would be a contingent interest analogous to the interests referred to in Sections 21, 33 and 34 of the Transfer of Property Act, which are referred to only by way of analogy and not because they apply in terms. We are not concerned with such a conditional gift in this case. In another sense, a gift may be conditional when to the interest created by it, is superseded a condition that the interest shall cease to exist in case a specified uncertain event shall happen or not happen. Such a condition is called a condition subsequent which makes the interest created by the gift defeasible by the happening or not happening of a certain event. The analogous principle is embodied in Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. Though the terms of Section 126 are not applicable, the principle embodied therein is that the gift may be superseded or revoked on the happening or not happening of a specified event which does not depend on the Will of the donor. It is clear that in the gift deed in the present case, there was no such agreement between the parties. A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (corresponding to Section 35 of the old Act of 1887) deals with rescission of contracts. The other Sections in Chapter IV of the Specific Relief Act deal with particular cases of rescission or consequences of rescission with which we are not concerned. Under Section 27(1), a person interested in a contract may sue to have it rescinded in any of the following cases, viz.