Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents in S.A.No. 527 of 1991 contended that there is no evidence in this case to show that the settlement deed of 1943 was accepted. It is his case that the gift deed is 1943 is not simple gift, but it is either a conditional or onerous gift, and there is no presumption of acceptance. It is also his case that in the Will, there is a statement that the settlement deed has not come into effect, and there is no necessity for cancelling the same. Learned Counsel also submitted the circumstances also are such that the settlement might not have been come into effect, and there is no evidence in this case to show that the donee-Janaki Ammal was paying tax to the property or maintaining the donor. According to the counsel, the statement in the Will must be taken as a prima facie evidence. How far the said contention could be accepted.

13. In MT. Janki v. Mohanlal A.I.R. 1925 Nag. 29, a learned Judge held that an implied trust was created where one condition in a gift deed was that the donee should maintain a certain person. Even in the case of conditional gift, coming under Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, acceptance of the gift will be sufficient. There need not he separate acceptance regarding the conditions. It was so held in Sabba Mohan Banerjee v. Manmohan Banerjee and Ors. A.I.R. 1933 Cal. 488. In that case, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held thus: