The court ruled that the conditional gift deed was validly executed, and compliance with its terms precludes the donee's revocation after extensive usage, despite modifications in structure for modern relevance.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J

1. The instant first appeal under section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 16.3.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) – Second, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1510 of 2021 Archana Tyagi and others vs. Yaduraj Narain, whereby the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits, regarding the land gifted by their predecessor Raghukul Narain, has been dismissed.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff- appellants filed a suit in the trial court with the averments that their predecessor Raghukul Narain(donor), had executed a gift deed on 8.2.1968 regarding land situated in khasra No. 4352, having area of 1104 square yards, the details of which were mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, in favour of his nephew/defendant Yaduraj Narain(donee), on the defendant's request. The gift deed was registered on 24.2.1968 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Meerut. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the gift was conditional that the defendant would construct a cinema hall on the gifted land,after taking due permission and if, the cinema hall could not be constructed, then the gifted land would revert back to the donor or his successors, whoever is alive. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant duly accepted the conditional gift.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that another gift deed was executed on 30.10.1968, consisting one plot of land of area 466.66 square yards and the other plot of land of 35 square yards, the smaller plot was to be used as a passage and the whole land was situated in khasra No. 4352, Garh Road, near Sohrab Gate, Meerut. This gift deed was registered on 8.11.1968 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Meerut. Both the gifts were conditional that if, due to some reason, permission to construct cinema hall is not granted by the competent authorities or if, the building of cinema hall is not constructed, then the gifted land would revert back to the donor or his successors, whoever is alive, and the defendant would have no objection to it. It was further agreed that a small area of 35 square yards would be used as a passage by both the predecessors of plaintiffs and the defendant, which would not be taken back.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the year 2019 their predecessor late Rajeev Tyagi came to know, that the defendant intended to demolish the existing Nandan cinema hall and in its place, construct a multiplex/commercial complex for business purposes and for this, the defendant has submitted a building plan before the Meerut Development Authority for approval. The plaintiffs contended that their consent was not obtained for demolishing the existing Nandan cinema hall and in its place, constructing multiplex/commercial complex, which proves that the defendant has deliberately violated the conditions of the gift deed. Subsequently, Rajeev Tyagi gave a notice dated 7.8.2019 to the defendant, Vice- Chairman/Secretary, Meerut Development Authority, Chief Development Officer, Meerut for restraining the defendant from constructing the multiplex/ commercial complex and for not sanctioning the building plan, because the land was gifted with the condition that only a cinema hall would