KU. SONIA BHATIA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 17-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KU. SONIA BHATIA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
March 17, 1981 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND 
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.J 
239 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960-Section 5(6)-Scope 
of-Gift of property for love and affection--!! could be said to be a transfer for 
consideration. 
Words and phrases·-"Consideration.''-'·Adequate''-"Gift"-"Transfer"-
Meaning of. 
Interpretation-Words of everyday use-How interpreted. 
A 
B 
c 
Sub-section 6 of section 5 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Hold-
D 
ings Act, 1960 as it stood at the relevant time provided that in determining the 
ceiling area any transfer of land made after January, 24, 1971 should be 
ignored and not taken into account. Clause (b) of the proviso to sub:section 6 
which carves out an exception states that . the sub-section shall not apply to a 
transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith 
and for adequate consideration u·nder an irrevocable instrument. Explanation II 
to this proviso places the burden of proof that a case fell within clause {b) of the 
E 
proviso is on the party claming its benefit. 
On January 28, 1972 the donor gifted away certain lands in favour of his 
grand-daughter, the appellant, daughter of a pre-deceased son. 
The gift having been made after the prescribed date, the Prescribed Autho-
rity ignored the gift for purposes of section 5 {6) of the Act. 
F. · 
On appeal, the District Judge gave a finding in favour of the appellant 
holding t.hat the gift was bona fide having regard to the circumstances in which 
it was made and that it could not b~ held invalid merely because it was.executed 
after the due date of January 24, 197 J. 
Purporting to follow one of its earlier decisions, the High Court held that a 
gift not being a transfer for consideration, had to be ignored under the provi-
si.ons of the Act and that a gift being a gratuitous transfer made out of love and 
affection fell outside the purview of clause (b) of the proviso. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that a gift could not be said 
to be a transfer witbaut consideration because even love and affection may 
G 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
provide sufficient consideration and hence the condition regarding adequate 
consideration would not apply to a gift. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal 
HELD : It is a well settled rule of construction of statutes that where the 
definition of a word has not been given in an enactment it must be construed in 
its popular sense if it is a word of every day use, that is, the sense in which 
people conversant with the subject-matter wiih which it deals would attribute to 
it. 
Similarly if the language used is clear and explicit, the provision cannot be 
reduced tg a nullity by reading into it a meaning which it does not carry. 
[246B] 
In the instant case therefore, the word "transfer" being a term of well-
known legal significance with well ascertained incidents the legislature did not 
consider it necessary to define it separately. It is used in the sense in which it is 
used in the Transfer of Property Act. [245 G] 
C.I.T., Andhra Pra.iesh v. M(s. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderahad [1972) t. 
S.C.R. 168 and Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth and Anr. [19fs] 1 
S.C.R. 423 applied. 
D 
·Keats v. Lewis [1911) A.C. 641 referred to. 
A conspectus of the meaning of the term "gift" is that it is a transfer which 
does not contain an element of consideration in any shape or form. 
Where 
in respect of a gift there is a benefit measurable in terms of money the 
transaction ceases to be a gift and assumes a different colour. Yet another 
salient feature of a gift is that love, affection and many other . factors may 
E 
constitute the motive for 
the gift 
and may enter into the intention of 
the donor making a gift, but none of these can be held to be legal considera-
tion, as undestood by law. [251 G-H; 252F] 
"Consideration" means a reasonable equivalent or other valuable benefit 
passed on by the promisor to the promi8ee or by the transferor to the transferee. 
When the term consideration is qualified by the word "adequate" it makes it 
F 
sufficient and valuable having regard to the facts, circumstances and necessities 
of the case. 
[251 Fl 
G 
H 
The word "transfer for adequate consideration" used in clause (b) of the 
proviso excludes a transaction, which is in the nature of a gift and which is with-
out consideration. [252 E] 
The argu

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