Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On all this evidence oral and documentary it appears to me that Sir Chinubhai intended to make a gift of the house to a Brahmin on the occasion of his daughter's death. There is no rent, there is no provision for eviction or re-entry in case of breach and it is impossible in my opinion to construe the document as lease. But if it is not a lease it can hardly be anything else but a gift, and a religious gift.

2. If this document had been executed by Sir Chinubhai in favour of the insolvent's father, and contained words sufficient to pass a title in the property to him, then undoubtedly it would have constituted a gift. The question would then arise whether it would be a conditional gift which restrained the power of the donee with regard to mortgaging or selling the property. But this document is only evidence of an oral assignment which had been made between Sir Ohinubhai and the insolvent's father. Assuming that Sir Chinubhai intended to make a gift of the property to the insolvent's father, he could not pass the title in the property without complying with the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, which gays: "For the purpose of making a gift of immoveable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses." Therefore in any event it cannot possibly be said that this document signed by the insolvent's father could have effected a valid gift of the property within the provisions of that section. Although it had been held that the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, which enact how a lease of immoveable property is to be made, are complied with if the lessee signs a document in favour of the owner, I am of opinion that a gift cannot be created by a document signed by the person intended to be benefited by an oral gift in favour of the owner of the property acknowledging the gift. In effect Exhibit 31 is merely an admission by the insolvent's father that he was in possession of the house belonging to Sir Ohinubhai with the right to reside in it and that he had no right either to mortgage or sell it. Whatever right the insolvent then had in the house so delivered into the possession of his father by Sir Ohinubhai, it would be impossible to say that he had any interest in the houge which could be put up by the Receiver for sale. Therefore we allow the appeal and restore the order of the Subordinate Judge.