LexS. SAROJINI AMMA versus VELAYUDHAN PILLAI SREEKUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
S. SAROJINI AMMA
v.
VELAYUDHAN PILLAI SREEKUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 10785 of 2018)
OCTOBER 26, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.122 – Document styled as
gift deed but executed for consideration with the executant retaining
possession and reserving her right over the property concerned –
Such document if can be treated as instrument of gift – Appellant
executed a purported gift deed in favour of her nephew i.e. the
respondent, for consideration (partly paid) inter alia stating therein
that the gift would take effect after the death of the appellant and
her husband – Later, appellant cancelled the gift deed – Cancellation
deed executed by the appellant, whether null and void – Held: Gift
means to transfer certain existing moveable or immoveable property
voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the
donor to another called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of
the donee – A conditional gift with no recital of acceptance and no
evidence in proof of acceptance, where possession remains with
the donor as long as he is alive, does not become complete during
lifetime of the donor – Conditional gift only becomes complete on
compliance of the conditions in the deed – When a gift is incomplete
and title remains with the donor, the deed of gift might be cancelled
– In the instant case, admittedly, the deed of transfer was executed
for consideration and was conditional subject to the condition that
the donee would look after the appellant and her husband and that
the gift would take effect after the death of the donor – There was
no completed gift of the property in question by the appellant to the
respondent and the appellant was within her right in cancelling the
deed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Gift means to transfer certain existing moveable
or immoveable property voluntarily and without consideration
by one person called the donor to another called the donee and
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 554
554
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
accepted by or on behalf of the donee. A conditional gift with no
recital of acceptance and no evidence in proof of acceptance,
where possession remains with the donor as long as he is alive,
does not become complete during lifetime of the donor. When a
gift is incomplete and title remains with the donor the deed of
gift might be cancelled. [Paras 14, 15] [558-G-H; 559-A-C]
1.2 The conditions precedent of a gift as defined in Section
122 of the Transfer of Property Act must be satisfied. A gift is
transfer of property without consideration. Moreover, a conditional
gift only becomes complete on compliance of the conditions in
the deed. In the instant case, admittedly, the deed of transfer
was executed for consideration and was in any case conditional
subject to the condition that the donee would look after the
appellant and her husband and subject to the condition that the
gift would take effect after the death of the donor. There was no
completed gift of the property in question by the appellant to the
respondent and the appellant was within her right in cancelling
the deed. [Paras 18, 19] [559-F-H; 560-A]
Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranivandas
Maganlal Thakker and Others (1997) 2 SCC 255 :
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 780 – relied on.
Reninkuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC
445 : [2014] 8 SCR 890 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 780
relied on
Para 14
[2014] 8 SCR 890
referred to
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10785
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.S.A. No.757 of 2011.
V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Harikumar V., Anupam Mishra, Prithviraj
Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S.
Kulkarni, Sidhant Sinha, Advs. for the Respondent.
S. SAROJINI AMMA v. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI SREEKUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated
03.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.S.A.
No. 757/2011 whereby the High Court was pleased to allow the Second
Appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court in favour of the appellant.
3. The short question involved in this appeal is whExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.