A registered gift completed through execution and acceptance conveys absolute title to the donee. Such a transaction is irrevocable, and any subsequent attempt at unilateral cancellation by the donor, absent specific conditions provided by law, is void and holds no legal validity.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122, 123 and 126 - Gift Settlement Deed - Unilateral revocation - Once a gift is validly executed, accepted by the donee and registered, it becomes an absolute transfer of title and cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor, except in contingencies specified in the Act - Cancellation deeds executed unilaterally without the consent of the donee are void and meaningless. (Paras 23, 27.3, 32.1, 32.2, 34)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 20 Rule 12 - Suit for recovery of possession - Entitlement to mesne profits - A court is empowered to direct an inquiry into mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until delivery of possession of the property to the decree holder; rejection of such a claim in a suit for recovery of possession is an error in exercise of judicial discretion. (Paras 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The respondent (plaintiff) and the appellant (defendant) are brothers. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the ground floor of the premises based on a registered Gift Settlement Deed executed by the mother. The defendant, who was already in permissive possession of the ground floor for several decades for business purposes, contended that he was the owner, claiming that the mother had later executed a cancellation of the gift deed, followed by an additional deed to nullify said cancellation. The trial court declared the plaintiff as the owner and ordered the defendant to vacate but rejected the claim for mesne profits.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the gift was complete upon execution and acceptance, and the subsequent unilateral cancellation by the mother was legally ineffective. The defendant failed to prove any undue influence or legal basis for asserting ownership, and his permissive possession did not ripen into an adverse claim.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of a unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed and the entitlement of the plaintiff to mesne profits upon the termination of a permissive license.

Ratio Decidendi: A gift deemed to be validly executed and accepted under the law results in an absolute transfer of title, rendering any subsequent unilateral revocation void, as title once passed cannot be reclaimed at the mere will of the donor.

Result: The appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff regarding the entitlement to an inquiry into mesne profits are allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The gift, once validly executed and accepted, cannot be unilaterally cancelled; unilateral cancellation is void. (!) (!) (!) - Section 126 TP Act permits revocation or suspension only under specific conditions; otherwise gifts are generally irrevocable. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Trial Court’s failure to order an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 for mesne profits was an error; cross objections allowed to grant mesne profits after decree. (!) (!) (!) - The respondent-plaintiff was declared owner of the ground floor and the appellant-directed possession; cancellation deeds Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 were found void for lack of proper bilateral action. (!) (!) (!) - Existence and effect of Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.A4) and its non-revocable nature under law; revocation required proper consent or bilateral agreement, not unilateral action. (!) (!) (!) - The donor’s age and capacity and the status of the mother (Radha Bai) were discussed in assessing validity and non-joinder issues. (!) (!) - The High Court dismissed the main appeal but allowed cross objections regarding mesne profits, directing an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12. (!) - The appellate court cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions clarifying the irrevocability of gifts and proper procedure for cancellation. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the effect of unilateral cancellation of a Gift Settlement Deed under Section 126 Transfer of Property Act as discussed in the judgment?

What is the court’s view on awarding mesne profits and under what circumstances is an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 to be conducted?

What are the rights and remedies of a donee vs donor when a Gift Deed is challenged or cancelled, and what binding effect do exs like Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 have on the parties?

COMMON JUDGMENT

CCCA No.407 of 2018:

1.1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') assailing the judgment and decree in OS No.445 of 2009, dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, where under respondent-plaintiff was declared as owner of the ground floor and the appellant-defendant was directed to vacate the premises.

1.2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS No.445 of 2009.

Cross Objections No.10 of 2019.

2.1. This Memorandum of Cross Objections is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree passed in OS No.445 of 2009, dated 14.09.2018 by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad where under claim for mesne profits was rejected.

2.2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in OS.No.445 of 2009.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be herein after referred to as arrayed in CCCA No.407 of 2018 as appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff.

4. The relief prayed by the respondent-plaintiff in OS.No.445 of 2009 is as under:

a) Plaintiff be declared as owner of the suit schedule property i.e. Ground Floor forming part and parcel and covered by Municipal No.5-4-477 and 5-4-482 situated at Kattalmandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad as per the schedule of the property given in the plaint and delineated in red colour in the plan annexed hereto.

b) Defendant be directed to vacate the suit schedule property and actual, vacant and physical possession thereof be delivered to the plaintiff.

c) Defendant be directed to pay mesne profits, damages and compensation for wrongful use and occupation at Rs.20,000/- p.m. from the date of the suit till the date of vacating the premises and delivery of actual, vacant and physical possession to the plaintiff.

d) Costs of the suit be allowed.

e) Such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may found entitled be also granted.

5. The suit schedule is as under:

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY

All that entire Ground Floor admeasuring 1000 Sq.ft area of construction with 1/3rd land area share in the entire property covered by and forming part and parcel of the premises bearing No.5-4-477 and 5-4-482 situated at Nampally Station Road, Kattalmandi, Hyderabad – 500 001 and delineated in red colour in the plan annexed hereto and bounded as under :

On the East : Partly by property No.5-4-483

and partly Kattalmandi Road

and partly 5-4-484

On the West : Partly by property No.5-4-476

and partly 5-4-486

On the South : Partly by House No.5-4-484,

5-4-486

On the North : Partly by property No.5-4-481

and partly by lane

6.1. The plaint in OS.No.445 of 2009 states that the mother of the respondent-plaintiff by name Smt.Radha Bai Mahendrakar was the absolute owner and possessor of the entire property covered by Municipal No.5-4-477 & 5-4-482 consisting of Ground, First and Second Floors situated at Nampally Station Road, leading from Abids Road, GPO Circle towards Nampally Station. Respondent-plaintiff and his mother are residing in the Second floor of the building. Smt.Radha Bai Mahendrakar permitted the appellant-defendant to use the Ground floor and he was a licensee, was in permissive possession of the entire Ground floor which is about 1000 square feet. In the prevailing circumstances, the Ground Floor portion occupied by the appellant-defendant would easily fetch rent of Rs.20,000/- per month exclusive of electricity and other amenity charges, municipal property taxes etc. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff claims damages and compensation for wrongful use and occupation and mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of suit till realization. Smt.Radha Bai Mahendrakar has executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 26.02.2007 gifting the entire three storied building with land in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, the said fact is also informed to the appellant-defendant. App

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12543

A registered gift completed through execution and acceptance conveys absolute title to the donee. Such a transaction is irrevocable, and any subsequent attempt at unilateral cancellation by the donor, absent specific conditions provided by law, is void and holds no legal validity.

What is the effect of unilateral cancellation of a Gift Settlement Deed under Section 126 Transfer of Property Act as discussed in the judgment?

What is the court’s view on awarding mesne profits and under what circumstances is an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 to be conducted?

What are the rights and remedies of a donee vs donor when a Gift Deed is challenged or cancelled, and what binding effect do exs like Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 have on the parties?

Cases Referred (5)