SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED) UNIVERSITY

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

PROPERTY LAW – 3rd INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

IRAC ANALYSIS ON RENIKUNTLA RAJAMMA V. K. SARWANAMMA

SUBMITTED BY:
SHREYA SINGH
2nd YEAR
B.A. LLB(Hons.)
DIVISION: ‘D’
18010125345
FACTS OF THE CASE : The plaintiff (respondent in this appeal) sought a
declaration that the revocation deed executed by the defendant-appellant revoking
a gift deed earlier executed by her, was null and void. It is important to note that
the donee defendant in the present case had reserved to herself during life, the right
to enjoy the benefits arising from the suit property.

The Trial Court on the issue of gift deed being marred by fraud or undue
influence found that the defendant had failed to prove such and also held that the
deed was not a sham or nominal document. The gift, according to trial Court, had
been validly made and accepted by the plaintiff, hence, irrevocable in nature.
Moreover, since the donor had taken no steps to assail the gift made by her for
more than 12 years, the same was voluntary in nature and free from any undue
influence, mis-representation or suspicion. The fact that the donor had reserved the
right to enjoy the property during her life time did not affect the validity of the
deed, the trial Court opined.
The First Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the trial Court and held that
the plaintiff had satisfactorily proved the execution of a valid gift in his favour and
that the revocation of a validly made gift deed was legally impermissible.
The Second Appellate Court, i.e., the High Court, also declined to interfere with
the judgments and orders impugned before it and dismissed the second appeal of
the appellant.

ISSUE:

 Whether retention of possession of the gifted property for enjoyment by the

donor during her life time and the right to receive the rents of the property
in any way affected the validity of the gift.
  Whether the deed purporting to revoke the gift in favor of the Plaintiff was
valid in the eyes of law?

Relevant Provisions

§ S. 122. “Gift” defined– “Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or

immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person,
called the donor, to another, called the donor, and accepted by or on behalf of the
donee. Acceptance when to be made-Such acceptance must be made during the
lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before
acceptance, the gift is void.
§ S. 123. Transfer how effected – For the making of a gift of immoveable property,
the transfer must be affected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of
the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses. For the purpose of making a gift
of moveable property, the transfer may be affected either by a registered
instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. Such delivery may be made in the
same way as goods sold may be delivered.
§ S. 129. Saving of donations mortis causa and Muhammadan Law– Nothing in
this Chapter relates to gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death,
or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Muhammadan law or, save as provided by
section 123, any rule of Hindu or Buddhist law”
Post 1929 Amendment
§ S. 129 Saving of donations mortis causa and Mohammedan Law– Nothing in
this Chapter relates to gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death,
or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Mohammedan law.
IV. CONTENTIONS
§ IVa. Appellant’s Contention
 A conditional gift was not envisaged by the provisions of the Transfer of Property
Act, so inasmuch as the gift deed failed to transfer, title, possession and the right to
deal with the property in absolute terms in favour of the donee the same was no
gift in the eyes of law. [Reiance being placed on Naramadaben Maganlal (supra).
§ IVb. Respondent’s Contention
Placing reliance on K. Balakrishnan (supra), it was contended that gift which
reserved a life interest for the donor could not be said to be invalid.
V. Judgment on the Issue
The Court adopted two different ways (Independent) to address the issue:
§ VA. Conjoint Reading of §§ 122 and 123 TPA and § 129 TPA
By doing so, the Court held that the “transfer of possession” of the property
covered by the registered instrument of the gift duly signed by the donor and
attested as required is not a sine qua non for the making of a valid gift under the
provisions of Transfer of Property Act 1882.
The Court approved the decision of Constitution Bench of Allahabad High Court
in Lallu Singh v. Gur Narain and Ors. [AIR 1922 All. 467], where the Court
rejected the contention that § 123 of the T.P. Act merely added one more
requirement of law namely requirement of attestation and registration of a gift
deed to what was already required by the Hindu Law, i.e., making the delivery of
possession absolutely essential for the completion of the gift.
§ 129 TPA: Both before and after 1929 Amendment
The Court held that a plain reading of the above made it manifest that the “rules of
Hindu law” and “Buddhist Law” were to remain unaffected by Chapter VII
except to the extent such rules were in conflict with § 123 of the TPA. This clearly
implied that § 123 had an overriding effect on the rules of Hindu Law pertaining to
gift including the rule that required possession of the property gifted to be given to
the donee.
 Post- amendment, the Hindu uncodified law relating to gifts apart from § 123, is
now even superseded by the whole Chapter VII.
Supplementary Reasoning
§  Vb. Division of § 123 in Two Parts
The Court noted that while the first part dealing with immovable property
mandatorily requires transfer by a registered instrument, the second part dealing
with movable property requires that gift of movable property may be
effected  either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or “by delivery”.
Therefore, ‘delivery’ is not even a criteria in gifting a immovable property
and not a mandatory criteria, rather is an alternative in gifting a movable
property.
VI. Judgment on the Conflicting Decisions [Unclear Analysis by the Court]
It was found that there is an apparent conflict between Naramadaben Maganlal
Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 255 and K.
Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 581, thus leading to this
reference to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement as to the true and
correct interpretation of Sections 122 and 123 of The Transfer of Property Act,
1882.
The Court distinguished the judgment in the case of Naramadaben
Maganlal (supra) on the facts in that case, since it was a conditional gift and there
was no recital of acceptance or any evidence in proof of acceptance on the part of
the donee. However, it is submitted that the Court in the present case erred in
not explaining why the Gift in Naramadaben case was a conditional gift, and
not in the present case as the following recitals of the deed in Naramadaben
case show that there the stipulations made on the gift deed were same as to be
addressed by the present case, i.e., enjoyment of the property by the donor till
his/her lifetime and right to receive rent. Apart from a clear finding of
acceptance by the donee in the present case, the judgment in
the Naramadaben case conflicts with the judgment in the present case.
In that case the donor that gifted the property stating:
“The said immovable property as described above with the ground floor and with
the ways to pass and with the water disposal and with all other concerned rights,
titles is gifted to you and the possession whereof is handed over to you under
the following conditions to be observed by you and your heirs and legal
representatives as long as the Sun and the Moon shine…that and you are made
owners by the gift deedof the said property on such conditions that there are 15
rooms on the said property at present. I am rightful to receive the rents and the
mesne profit whatsoever accrued from the said rooms throughout my life. I
am only entitled to receive the mesne profit of the said property till I live.
Similarly the said property shall be in my possession till I live…And by this
gift deed the Limited ownership right will be conferred to you till I live. After my
death you are entitled to transfer the said property. I shall not give in any way
my right to anybody to collect the mesne profit. You may get transferred the said
property in your name in support of this deed. This gift deed is executed to you
under the aforesaid conditions.”
Then, the deed was cancelled stating that:
“I executed to you a conditional gift deed of the said property from sky to
earth. You had promised me to fulfill the oral conditions between us. But
immediately after making the gift accordingly, you denied to fulfill the said
conditions, The possession of the gifted property is not handed over to you. So in
fact, you have not accepted the conditional gift of the property and I am also
not willing to act according to the conditional gift.“
The Court approved the judgment of K. Balakrishnan (supra), where the Court
held had held that there is no prohibition in law that ownership in a property
cannot be gifted without its possession and right of enjoyment.
VII. Conclusion
The Court, while approving the dictum that where the terms of a Statute or
Ordinance are clear, then even a long and uniform course of judicial interpretation
of it may be overruled, held that (i) whenever the donor is in absolute ownership of
the property, (ii)
and transfers absolute title in the gift to the donee, (iii) which the donee accepts,
and (iv) the acceptance of which is in the lifetime of donor, then, the mere fact of
retaining the right to use the property during the lifetime of the donor, does
not affect the transfer of ownership in the favor of the donee.
In the effect, if the donor does not give possession of the property to the donee till
he/she is alive and even collects rents till his/her lifetime, such stipulations do not
make the gift conditional. Therefore, it is a valid gift and consequently, the appeal
was dismissed.