K. BALAKRISHNAN versus K. KAMALAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 18-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. BALAKRISHNAN 
A 
v. 
K. KAMALAM AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2003 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1872: Section 127. 
Gift-Acceptance of-By minor-Transfer of property by-Validity-
Mother gifted a portion of her property to her minor son by registered gift- C 
deed-Subsequently, she cancelled the gift-deed and executed a Will 
bequeathing the said property to her daughter-Minor son on 'attaining 
majority filed a suit for declaration of his title to the gifted property-Trial 
court dismissed the suit holding that the donee was a minor and no one 
accepted the gift on his behalf-First appellate court allowed the appeal 
holding that a minor was not disqualified from receiving the gift and that D 
acceptance could be e:>..press or implied-But High Court held that the gift-
deed was invalid because the donor had reserved to herself the possession 
and enjoyment of the property gifted-Correctness of -Held: There is no 
prohibition in law that ownership in property could not be gifted without 
, the possession and right of enjoyment-A minor is not incapable of E 
receiving property-When a gift is made to a minor generally there is 
presumption of its acceptance-Express acceptance of a gift by a minor 
not possible and implicit acceptance could be expected-Hence, gift-deed 
valid-High Court's order set aside. 
F 
The appellant's deceased mother (donor) executed a registered 
gift-deed of 1/8th share of her property in favour of the appellant, who 
was a minor then and the first respondent-daughter. Under terms of 
the gift-deed ownership of the property, half-anii-half, to each of the 
two donees was transferred but the donor retained during her lifetime G 
the possession and enjoyment of the property. 
After the appellant had attained majority the donor executed a 
cancellation-deed whereby she cancelled the gift-deed and thereafter 
executed a Will bequeathing the same property comprising her lf8th 
share in favour of her daughter, the first respondent. 
H 
1097 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Thereafter, the appellant-donee filed a suit for declaration of his 
title to the suit property based on the gift-deed and for a further 
declaration that the cancellation-deed and the Will were ineffective 
and void in law. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the 
appellant was a minor at the time of execution of the gift-deed and !hat 
B no one had accepted the gift on his behalf. It, therefore, held that the 
gift-deed was invalid and passed no title to the donee. 
The first appellant court allowed the appeal holding that a minor 
in law was not disqualified from receiving the property under the gift-
deed, that the appellant could accept the gift during his minority, and 
C that such acceptance could be express or implied. 
Hcwever, the High Court held that there was no transfer of 
property; that the entire right in the property gifted was reserved by 
the donor to herself and that there was no question of acceptance of 
D the gift by the appellant. Hence the appeal. 
The following question of law arose before the Court: 
Whether the appellant, who was a minor on the date of execution 
of the gift-deed, could be held to have legally accepted the property 
E gifted to him and the said gift-deed was irrevocable? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The donor had very clearly transferred to the donees 
ownership and title in respect of her l/8th share in the properties. It 
F was open to the donor to transfer by gift, title and ownership in the 
property and at the same time reserve its possession and enjoyment 
to herself during her lifetime. [1102-H; 1103-A] 
2.1. A minor suffers disability from entering into a contract but 
he is thereby not incapable of receiving property. The Transfer of 
G Property Act, 1872 does not prohibit transfer of property to a minor. 
[1104-B] 
2.2. The acquisition of property being generally beneficial, a child 
can take property in any manner whatsoever either under intestacy or 
H by Will or by purchase or gift or other assurance inter-vivos, except 
K. BALAKRISHNAN v. K. KAMALAM 
1099 
where it is clearly to his prejudice to do so. A gift inter-vivas to a child A 
cannot be revoked. There is a presumption in favour of the validity of 
a gift of a parent or a grandparent to a child, if it is complete. When 
a gift is made to a child, generally there is a presumption of its 
acceptance because express acceptance in hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.