Back
Himachal Pradesh High Court
A. L. VAIDAY, J.
Mool Raj - Appellant
Versus
Jamna Devi and others - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 21/ 88
Decided On : 10 August 1994
GIFT - REVOCATION - SERVICES - CUSTOM - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - INTERPRETATION - MAINTENANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Smt. Jamna Devi executed a gift deed in favor of the defendants, transferring ownership of her property. The gift was alleged to be conditional, with the condition that the defendants would render services to her. The defendants failed to comply with this condition, prompting Smt. Jamna Devi to file a suit for possession of the gifted land, arguing that the gift should be revoked due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the gift deed. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the gift was irrevocable and unconditional. They also pleaded that they had been rendering services to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the gift deed was conditional and that the defendants had breached the condition of maintenance of the plaintiff. The court also found that the parties were governed by the agricultural custom of Kangra District, which allowed for the revocation of a conditional gift in case the condition was not fulfilled.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed was conditional and, if so, to what effect? 2. Whether the defendants breached the conditions of the gift deed and, if so, to what effect? 3. Whether the parties were governed by the agricultural custom of Kangra District? 4. Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file the present suit? 5. Whether the suit was time-barred? 6. Whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata? 7. What was the effect of the minority of the defendants at the time of execution of the gift deed on this suit? 8. What was the effect of the minority of defendant No. 3 on this suit? 9. Whether the suit was not maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the pleadings, evidence, and relevant legal provisions to determine the nature of the gift and the applicability of the agricultural custom. It referred to the customary law of Kangra District, which stated that conditional gifts, such as those made in return for services, could be revoked if the conditions were not fulfilled. However, the court found that the gift deed in question did not contain any specific condition for revocation in case the services were not rendered. It also noted that the evidence presented did not establish the existence of a custom that allowed for the revocation of a gift without a specific condition for revocation.
Final Decision: The court held that the gift deed could not be revoked solely on the ground that the defendants failed to render services, as there was no specific condition in the deed for revocation in such circumstances. The court emphasized that the Transfer of Property Act governs gifts, and under the Act, a gift cannot be revoked for failure of consideration. The court directed the defendants to render proper services and maintain the plaintiff throughout her life, failing which the plaintiff would be at liberty to take legal action against them.
2. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the gift was irrevocable, being unconditional one. On merit, they pleaded that they have been rendering the services to the plaintiff. The suit was also resisted on the ground of locus standi, limitation, res judicata and maintainability.
3. The trial Court framed the following Issues on the pleading of the parties :
1. Whether the gift deed dated 26-5-1973 was conditional. If so, to what effect ? OPP
2. Whether the defendants breached the conditions of the gift deed and if so to what effect ? OPP
3. Whether the parties are Rajputs by caste and are governed by the agricultural custom of Kangra District ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata ? OPD
7. What is the effect of minority of the defendants at the time of execution of the gift deed on this suit ? OPD
8. What is the effect of the minority of defendant No. 3 on this suit ? OPD
9. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
10. Relief.
4. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and under Issue No. 2 it was held that the defendants had breached the condition of maintenance of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was also disposed of in the affirmative while Issue No. 4 in the negative. The trial Court held the suit to be within limitation and also gave a finding under Issue No. 6 against the defendant. Issue Nos. 7 and 8 were again decided against the defendants and Issue No. 9 was also answered in the negative. The suit of the plaintiff, as prayed for, was decreed.
5. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were assailed before the lower appellate Court which, after hearing the parties, maintained the same.
6. The aforesaid judgment and decree have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
8. This Court admitted the present appeal on the following question of law :
"Whether the gift deed could be revoked due to the failure of the donee to render services?"
9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that as there was no specific condition incorporated in the gift deed for revocation of the same for not rendering the services, therefore, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act such a gift could not be revoked but, on the other hand, in the event of failure of the defendants to render services, the donor could ask for maintenance or some amount in lieu of services.
10. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the parties were governed by agricultural custom of Kangra in the matter of gift and in a case of present nature the gift, executed for services, could be revoked in case the services were not being rendered. It has come in evidence and also held by the two Courts below that the parties were governed by agricultural custom in the matter of gift.
11. Customary Law of the Kangra District, compiled by L. Middleton, Esquire, I. C. S., Settlement Officer, Kangra District also can be taken note of to solve the controversy between the parties. Question No. 94 can safely be referred to in this regard :
"Question 94 : State
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
