SRIDHAR & ANR. versus N. REVANNA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 11-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
SRIDHAR & ANR.
v.
N. REVANNA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1209 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss. 10, 13 – Two gift deeds
were executed in favour of defendant no.1 by his grandfather, who
was also great grandfather of plaintiffs, with a condition that donee
and his younger brothers hereafter had no right to alienate the
scheduled property – Defendant no.1 executed three sale deeds in
favour of defendant nos. 2-5 – Defendant nos. 6 & 7 were tenants
of the premises – Suit was filed by appellants-plaintiffs against
defendants inter alia for declaration that the alienations in favour
of defendants 2-5 are null and void – Dismissed – High Court partly
decreed the suit – Held: One of the conditions in the gift deed was
that “the donee or his younger brothers who may be born hereafter
have no right to alienate the schedule property in any manner
whatsoever by way of sale, gift mortgage or otherwise” – s.10
expressly provides that where property is transferred subject to a
condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any
person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his
interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void – Thus,
the condition in the gift deed that defendant no.1 shall not alienate
the property is a void condition – Further, the gift was not in favour
of any unborn person but in favour of defendant no.1 who was a
minor, five years old – Condition was put on the donee and his
younger brothers who may be born after the execution of the gift
deed – Condition put on person unborn is entirely different from
execution of gift deed in favour of a person who is not born – Thus,
gift clearly being in favour of defendant no.1 and not in favour of
unborn person, s.13 also has no application in the facts of the
present case – High Court erred in holding that defendant no.1
was not entitled to transfer the property received by gift deed –
Plaintiffs were not entitled for declaration sought in the suit.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 723
723
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 One of the conditions which was enumerated in
the gift deed was that “the donee or his younger brothers who
may be born hereafter have no right to alienate the schedule
property in any manner whatsoever by way of sale, gift mortgage
or otherwise”. [Para 14][730 E-H]
1.2 Section 10 expressly provides that where property is
transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely
restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from
parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the
condition or limitation is void. According to Section 10 any
condition restraining the transferee the right of alienation is void.
A plain reading of Section 10 of Transfer of Property Act makes it
clear that the condition in the gift deed dated 05.06.1957 that
defendant No. 1 shall not alienate the property is a void condition.
A perusal of the gift deed indicates that the grandfather gifted
the immovable property to his grandson. Gift was not in favour of
any unborn person rather gift was in favour of who was a minor,
five years old. The reference of donee and his younger brothers
or their male children was made while enumerating the conditions
as contained in the gift deed. The condition was put on the donee
and his younger brothers who may be born after the execution of
the gift deed. The condition put on person unborn is entirely
different from execution of gift deed in favour of a person who is
not born. Thus, the gift was clearly a gift in favour of defendant
No.1 and not in favour of unborn person, thus, Section 13 has no
application in the facts of the present case. [Paras 17, 21][731 D-
F; 733 D-G]
1.3 The High Court erred in holding that defendant No.1
was not entitled to transfer the property which was received by
gift deed dated 05.06.1957. The plaintiffs were not entitled for
declaration as sought for in the suit. [Para 25][735-C]
Smt. Brij Devi v. Shiva Nanda Prasad and others, AIR
1939 Allahabad 221; Smt. Prem Kali v. Deputy Director
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
of Consolidation, Sitapur and others 2016 (116) ALR
794; F.M. Devaru Ganapathi Bhat v. Prabhakar
Ganapathi Bhat (2004) 2 SCC 504 : [2003] 6 Suppl.
SCR 1265 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1939 Allahabad 221
referred to
Para 18
2016 (116) ALR 794
referred to
Para 19
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1265
referred to
Par

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