Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Smt. Jamna Devi respondent executed a gift deed in favour of the defendants of the property owned by her. The gift deed was pleaded to be conditional one and the condition was that the defendants would render services to her. As the defendants did not comply with the condition of the gift deed, therefore, Smt. Jamna Devi filed a suit for possession of the gifted land as, according to her, by non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the gift deed the same should be revoked. She also pleaded that the parties, being Rajput by caste and agriculturists by occupation, were governed by custom, which amongst them was that a conditional gift in lieu of services was liable to be revoked, if the condition was not fulfilled.

13. In order to appreciate the aforesaid proposition, at the first instance, the pleadings and the evidence adduced in this behalf have to be appreciated.

14. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that the said deed of gift dated 26-5-1973 was a conditional and the defendants were burdened with the obligation to render future services towards maintenance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also pleaded that the parties were Rajput by caste and were governed by Kangra Agricultural Custom in the matter of gift pertaining to rendering of future services and revocation thereof on ground of breach of condition. These pleadings, no doubt, made averments that, on the basis of custom, the gift made of future services, could be revoked in case services were not rendered. However, there is no specific plea raised by the plaintiff in this regard that under custom the gift, without there being any specific condition for revocation on account of non-rendering of services, even otherwise could be revocable. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that reference of past and future services to be the purpose of gift, the non-performance of these services automatically would bring the gift to an end and the donor was legally competent to revoke the same. It is not so simple a matter, as has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff.

15. The evidence examind by the plaintiff did not establish this fact by quoting instances that without there being a specific condition for revocation of the gift deed for non-rendering services, it would be revocable when the services agreed to be rendered were not so rendered to the donor.

16. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff Jamna Devi. She nowhere stated that in such like cases where no specific condition for revocation of the gift deed was there, it could be so revoked for the non-performance of the services at the option of the donor. She only stated that the defendants had agreed to serve her at the time when the gift was made in their favour but they have stopped to render services and had started beating her.

25. In Tila Bewa v. Mana Bewa (AIR 1962 Orissa 130) it has been held as under:

"A gift subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor cannot be revoked under Section 126 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 in that behalf amounts to want of consideration; Section 126 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, the latter (donor) can take proper steps to recover maintenance. If under the terms of the gift deed there has been an absolute transfer of the property in favour of the donee, a direction for maintenance of the donor by the donee shall be regarded only as an expression of pious wish on the part of the donor."