Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that under Exhibit A-1, there was only a conditional gift in favour of the plaintiff the condition being that she should live with her husband and look after his welfare and co-operate with him and since this condition has not been fulfilled by the plaintiff, Seetharama Goundar was perfectly justified in executing Exhibit B-5 and revoking the settlement deed which he had executed under Exhibit A-1. A perusal of Exhibit A-1 shows that no such condition has been imposed when Seetharama Goundar executed Exhibit A-l. Except expressing a pious wish that the wife must look after him and co-operate with him, there is no indication to show that the gift to the plaintiff under Exhibit A-1 was made subject to the condition that she, should live with him and look after his welfare. In fact, the plea that there was a conditional gift made under Exhibit A-1 has not even been made in the written statement of the first defendant. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Exhibit A-1 was a conditional gift and on the failure of the condition mentioned in Exhibit A-1 it became inoperative and the plaintiff's husband was competent to revoke the name. The learned Counsel for the defendants relied on paragraph 5 of the written statement to show that the plea of conditional gift has been averred in the written statement. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the written statement does not make out a case that Exhibit A-1 was a conditional gift and the property was gifted in favour of the plaintiff subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled by her. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that after the execution of Exhibit A-1, the plaintiff never lived with her husband and she had never taken possession of the property nor was in enjoyment of the same and as such, the plaintiff's husband was competent to execute Exhibit B-5 and revoke the settlement deed under Exhibit A-l. All these arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondents, overlook one essential fact that when under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is a valid, absolute gift in favour of the plaintiff, her failure to continue in possession or her nor living with her husband will not have the effect of divesting the title which has already been vested in favour of the plaintiff as a result of Exhibit A-l. As the execution of the original of Exhibit A-1 has been admitted and as the acceptance of the donee, the plaintiff, herein, is also established, the requirements of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act are fulfilled and as there is a valid gift in favour of the plaintiff and the title has vested in her favour, her husband cannot unilaterally revoke the gift deed, under Exhibit B-5. In this view of the matter, the finding of the trial Court that under Exhibit A-1, there is a valid gift and the plaintiff's husband cannot revoke the same under Exhibit B-5 is fully justified. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored. No costs.