The court ruled that a gift conditioned on perpetual service is unconstitutional and the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim for resumption of land due to lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The appellants / plaintiffs are before this Court against the judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 20.08.2009, whereby the second appeal of the respondents / defendants was allowed and the concurrent decisions of the courts below, which had decreed the suit, were set aside.

The facts are as follows:

2. Land measuring 38 Bighas 8 Biswas (hereinafter “suit land”) was gifted by one Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh (“donor”) to Sanwalia, Ratiram and Sheochand, all sons of one Chhailu (“donees”) in 1953. The oral gift was duly executed and mutation was carried out in favour of the donees on 13.12.1953. The possession of this land was also given to the donees on 13.12.1953.

Things remained peaceful, for 45 long years, then a suit was filed in the year 1998 for declaration and for possession, or more precisely for resumption of this property. The case of the plaintiffs was that they are the heirs of the erstwhile donor and that the suit land was gifted in lieu of the services, which had to be rendered by the donees and their heirs to the donor and his heirs lifelong. It was then asserted that since the defendants have stopped rendering these services and since the original donees have died anyway, the suit land should revert to the plaintiffs in terms of the gift condition.

These plaint averments were countered in an extremely dull even unimaginative manner in the written statements of the defendants. Nevertheless, the defendants opposed the plaint averments, contending that though the gift was for services rendered, there was no condition for the gift to revert to the donor upon the death of the donees. Even otherwise, they contended that the plaintiffs have no cause of action as the terms of the gift are being complied with and the defendants have been rendering “all kind of services”, to the plaintiffs! It was also asserted that records relating to possession and ownership of the suit land have been mutated in their favour since 1953 and that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

3. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, concluded that what was crucial was that the subject matter of the gift was only a life interest in suit land and since the services have been stopped, the land was liable to be reverted in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was held to be within time and as the plaintiffs’ title was proved, the suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court agreed with these findings and dismissed the defendant’s appeal!

The High Court though allowed the defendant’s second appeal and dismissed the suit, largely on the ground of limitation, though it was, inter alia, also observed that nowhere in the mutation dated 13.12.1953 is it mentioned that the donees had to serve the heirs of the donor as well and it could be presumed that proper services were rendered to the donor during his lifetime. Further, the plaintiffs failed to disclose what these “services” were and when exactly they were stopped.

Apart from making a bald statement in the plaint that the defendants have stopped rendering services, there is no worthwhile evidence placed by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. On the contrary, evidence has been placed by the defendants in form of DW-1 who has stated that after the death of the donor-Randhir Singh, his children had left the village and nobody from the family of the donor remained in the village and therefore there was no one who could be served. This evidence, however, has not been considered either by the Trial Court or by the First Appellate Court and no reason has been assigned as to why this was done.

4. At the centre of this dispute lies the oral gift, which came to be recorded in the mutation order dated 13.12.1953. The same, as translated to English, is reproduced below:

In a general meeting Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh donor along with identifier Neki Ram Lambardar who appeared and made a statement that he has gifted the land measuring 38 Bigha 8 Biswas in l