IMPORTANT POINT
Where a gift is made by parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance of the gift by the donee.

Headnote:(i) Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Section 6(d)-Gift-What may be transferred-No prohibition in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without its possession and right of enjoyment-Donor mother transferred to donee, her minor son, ownership and title in respect of her 1/8th share in properties-Donor reserved to herself right to sign papers with respect to management of school and right to take usufruct from the property where the school is situated-Whether gift deed was ineffectual-(No).
       Held : We have critically examined the contents of the gift deed. To us, it appears that the donor had very clearly transferred to the donees ownership and title in respect of her 1/8th share in properties. It was open to the donor to transfer by gift title and ownership in the property and at the same time reserve its possession and enjoyment to herself during her lifetime. There is no prohibition in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without its possession and right of enjoyment. Under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act "property of any kind may be transferred" except those mentioned in clauses (a) to (i). (Para 10)
       Clause (d) of Section 6 is not attracted on the terms of the gift-deed herein because it was not a property, the enjoyment of which was restricted to the owner personally. She was absolute owner of the property gifted and it was not restricted in its enjoyment to herself. She had inherited it from her maternal father as a full owner. The High Court was, therefore, apparently wrong in coming to the conclusion that the gift-deed was ineffectual merely because the donor had reserved to herself the possession and enjoyment of the property gifted. (Para 11)
       (ii) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Sections 122 to 127-Contract Act, 1872-Section 11-Gift to a minor-Validity-Minor s capacity to accept gift without intervention of guardian-Gift of mother to her minor son-Presumption in favour of validity of gift-Rule of implied acceptance-Mother executed a registered gift deed of 1/8th share of property inherited by her from her maternal grandfather in favour of her minor son aged 16 years and her daughter aged four years-Subsequently donor executed a cancellation deed-Will executed bequeathing the same property in favour of her daughter-Donor died in 1982-Appellant son filed suit claiming declaration of his title to suit property on basis of gift deed-Whether Courts below were justified in holding that there was no valid acceptance of gift by minor donee-(No)-Gift having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete, it was irrevocable.
       Held : Where a gift is made in favour of a child of the donor, who is the guardian of the child, the acceptance of gift can be presumed to have been made by him or on his behalf without any overt act signifying acceptance by the minor. In the instant case, mother who is the natural guardian gifted the property to her minor son in the year 1945. The donee was an educated lad of 16 years of age, capable of understanding and living jointly with the donor. Knowledge of the execution of the gift would have been derived in normal circumstances, by the minor, being beneficiary, sooner or later after its execution. Knowledge of gift deed to both the parents as natural guardians and the donee is sufficient to indicate acceptance of gift by the minor himself or on his behalf by the parents. The gift deed was revoked by the mother much after its execution as late as in the year 1970. By that time, the donee had become major and he never repudiated the gift. We have examined the terms of the gift-deed. Non-delivery of possession of the gifted property, non-exercise of any rights of ownership over it, and failure by the donee, on attaining majority, in getting his name mutated in official records are not circumstances negativing the presumption of acceptance by the minor during his minority or on his attaining majority. The donor had reserved to herself, under the terms of gift deed, the right to manage, possess and enjoy the property during her life time. Since the possession and enjoyment of the property including management of the school were retained by the donor during her life time, the acceptance of the ownership of the property gifted could be by silent acceptance. Such acceptance is confirmed by its non-repudiation by his parents and by him on attaining majority. As is the evidence on record, mother - the donor was herself the natural guardian of the minor donee. The father was also a guardian and had knowledge of the gift. He also did not repudiate the gift on behalf of the donee. The donee himself was of 16 years of age and could understand the nature of beneficial interest conferred on him. He also had knowledge of the gift-deed and on attaining majority did not repudiate it. These are all circumstances which reasonably give rise to an inference, if not of express but implied acceptance of the gift. Where a gift is made by parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance of the gift by the donee. This presumption of acceptance is founded on human nature. A man may be fairly presumed to assent to that to which he in all probability would assent if the opportunity of doing so were given to him . (Para 25)
       In our considered opinion therefore, the trial court and the High Court were wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no valid acceptance of the gift by the minor donee. Consequently, conclusion has to follow that the gift having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete, it was irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 126 prohibits revocation of a validly executed gift except in circumstances mentioned therein. The gift was executed in 1945. It remained in force for about 25 years during which time the donee had attained majority and had not repudiated the same. It was, therefore, not competent for the donor to have cancelled the gift and executed a Will in relation to the property. (Para 31)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

When a parent makes a gift to a child, there is a presumption that the child accepts the gift, even if there is no explicit act of acceptance by the minor (!) (!) .
A gift of property can be validly made by a parent to a minor child, with ownership transferred to the child, while the parent reserves the right to manage or enjoy the property during their lifetime. There is no legal prohibition against transferring ownership without immediate possession or enjoyment by the donor (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that a minor can accept a gift, especially when the donor is the natural guardian and the gift is non-onerous (not burdened with obligations). Such acceptance can be implied through conduct or silence, and does not require explicit acceptance (!) (!) .
The acceptance of a gift by a minor does not necessarily require formal act; it can be presumed from circumstances such as the minor's knowledge of the gift, the conduct of the donor and guardians, and the minor's failure to repudiate the gift upon reaching majority (!) (!) .
A gift made by a parent to a minor, once accepted, becomes irrevocable if the gift is complete and the minor has not repudiated it after attaining majority. The law prohibits revoking such a gift unless specific conditions for revocation are met (!) (!) .
The legal framework permits a donor to reserve certain rights, such as management or usufruct, while transferring ownership, provided there is no legal prohibition. Such reservations do not invalidate the transfer of ownership (!) (!) .
The law supports the presumption that a gift to a minor is accepted, especially when the minor is of sufficient age to understand the nature of the gift, and the donor and guardians are aware of the transaction (!) (!) .
The validity of a gift to a minor is reinforced when the donor and guardians act in a manner consistent with acceptance, even if there is no explicit acknowledgment from the minor (!) (!) .
Once a gift is made and accepted, it cannot be revoked by the donor unless specific legal conditions for revocation are satisfied, such as a contractual agreement or particular circumstances outlined in the law (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles uphold that a gift from a parent to a minor, if completed and accepted, is effective and binding, and such acceptance can be inferred from conduct and circumstances rather than explicit acts.

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-The only substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was minor on the date of execution of the gift-deed dated 24.9.1945, can be held to have legally accepted the property in suit gifted to him and the said gift-deed was irrevocable.

2. The appellant shall hereinafter be described as the donee and his deceased mother as the doner . The relevant dates and facts leading to this appeal preferred against the impugned judgment dated 6.8.1999 of the High Court of Kerala, passed in Second Appeal No. 671 of 1992 are thus:-

3. On 24.9.1945, mother Devyani-donor executed a registered gift-deed of 1/8th share of the property inherited by her from her maternal grandfather in favour of her minor son aged 16 years being the present appellant (donee) and her daughter Kamalam (respondent No. 1 herein) who was aged four years. The 1/8th share of the property gifted is described in the schedule of gift-deed i.e. one acre and 25 cents of property in Survey No. 7481 & 7482 with school building in Mayyanad Cherry in the State of Kerala. Under the terms of the gift-deed ownership of the property, half and half, to each of the two donees was transferred but the donor retained during her life time the management of the school and the income from the property. The original gift-deed is in Malyalam and rendered into English, it reads thus :-

"Gift executed on 8th Kanni 1121 (24-9-1945) Mother Devayani aged 43, Eznava daughter of Narayanan residing at Kamolayan from CL Mandiram, Eravipuram Pakuthy, Mayyanad Cherry in favour of her children (1) Balakrishnan aged 16 son of Kunju Pillai and (2) Kamalam aged 4 residing at Kamalalayam, Mayyanad Cherry.

You are my children. In consideration of my love and affection towards you, the under-mentioned properties are given to you by way of gift. Accordingly from today you shall enjoy the paddy fields which are obtained my mortgage by being in possession and payment of tax and you can recover mortgage money by filing suit or by receiving it directly after executing a release. You shall also transfer in your name according to law the right in respect of the property in which Mayyanad English School stands as also the buildings and other movables therein and enjoy the same with all rights forever. The responsibility to sign in regard to the above school and to receive the income will be with me during my lifetime and after my death the above responsibilities will vest in the first named donee.

Schedule (Other items omitted)

1/8 share in 1 acre 80 cents in property in Sy. No. 7481 & 7482 of the Mayyanad Cherry in which the English school is situated, the entire school buildings and the entire movables in the above."

3. On 28.3.1970, the donor executed a cancellation deed whereby she cancelled the gift-deed dated 24.9.1945 and thereafter executed a Will on 30.3.1970 bequeathing the same property comprising her 1/8th share in favour of her daughter, first respondent. The donor died on 6.11.1982. The appellant filed the present suit OS No. 145 of 1986 in the Court of Quilon claiming declaration of his title to the suit property on the basis of the gift-deed and a further declaration was sought that the cancellation deed dated 28.3.1970 and the Will dated 30.3.1970 are ineffective and void in law.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit holding inter alia that the donee was a minor and no one has accepted the gift on his behalf. It, therefore, held that the gift deed was invalid and passed no title to the donee. It also recorded a finding that the gift deed was executed by the donor during pendency of a suit against her for recovery of money with intention to save it against execution of the decree which was likely to be passed in that suit.

5. The appeal preferred by the present appellant to the first appellate court was allowed on 21.7.1992 by the District Judge, Kollam. The first appellate court held that a minor in law is not disqualified from receiving the prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1315

IMPORTANT POINTWhere a gift is made by parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance of the gift by the donee.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a gift is made by parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance of the gift by the donee.