LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Shree. ( Advocate.)     30 October 2009

Citation Needed?

Dear All,

Judgement of the Apex Court or Citation of the below news item needed.

Parents can’t take back gifted property from son: court

 

 

Legal Correspondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Delhi: Parents who have gifted their property to their son cannot take it back merely because he neglected them or did not reciprocate their love and affection, the Supreme Court has held.

“Once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. For any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift,” said a Bench consisting of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi.

The donor’s declaration making the gift, followed by the handing over of the gift deed, was amply sufficient to establish transfer of possession.

 

In the instant case, a man executed a registered gift deed in March 1984 in favour of his son, Asokan of Kerala, and he was put in possession of the gifted property. After the death of his father, Asokan’s mother Lakshmikutty cancelled the gift deed on the ground that her son failed to comply with the condition that he contribute Rs. 1 lakh for his sister’s marriage. Further, Ms. Lakshmikutty said, Mr. Asokan’s attitude changed after the gift was made and he neglected her and had not been providing financial help to the family.

On a suit from Mr. Asokan, the lower court decreed in his favour upholding the gift. The first appellate court, however, reversed the order holding there was no overt act of possession on the part of the appellant as he had not paid any tax, nor had he got his name changed in revenue records.

The Kerala High Court affirmed this order.

Setting aside the impugned judgment, the apex court said the gift deeds were executed out of love and affection as well as on the ground that the donee was the son and successor of the donor and to enable him to live a good family life.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sinha said: “Could they now turn around and say that he was to fulfil a promise? The answer thereto must be rendered in the negative. It is one thing to say that the execution of the deed is based on an aspiration or belief, and another to say that the same constituted an onerous gift.”

Dated Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 The Hindu.



Learning

 1 Replies

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     31 October 2009

This judgment shall clearify various confusion prevalent among the legal fratenity as well as in the general public. It is a landmark judgment.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register