Revocation of a conditional gift deed

Ask from your law professor. 

He is not willing to answer. I was thinking of applying section 27 (2nd part) in my favor. That I intended the condition to happen in a certain way, like active failure rather than the death of the person. 

To my knowledge, gift deeds with such conditions are unknown to law.

A conditional gift deed for immovable property can be revoked under certain circumstances, primarily if the conditions attached to the gift are not fulfilled by the donee. 

Additionally, the gift deed may contain a clause specifying the conditions for revocation. 

If the gift is subject to a condition and the donee fails to meet it, the donor can initiate legal proceedings to cancel the deed. 

A gift deed can be made conditional, meaning the transfer of the property is subject to certain terms or obligations imposed on the donee.

If the donee fails to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the gift deed, the donor can pursue revocation of the gift.

The gift deed itself may contain a clause explicitly outlining the conditions under which the gift can be revoked, such as the failure to meet certain obligations. 

If the donee does not agree to the revocation, the donor must file a legal suit in a Civil Court to seek the cancellation of the gift deed. 

The court will evaluate the evidence presented and if it finds that the revocation is justified, it will issue an order to revoke the gift deed. 

They do sir, section 27 and 28 of Transfer of Property Act talk about ulterior disposition.

In my view, when the donor dies within a short time, the donor cannot revoke the gift deed as the donee has died.  The legal heirs of the donee have the right to the property of the Gift deed.

But it's a conditional gift deed. Also, Supreme Court in S. Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar, (2018) 16 SCC 126 held that where a gift deed was conditional and the donor retained possession and control, the transfer did not amount to a completed gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act.

You can discuss all further academic issues involved in this query with your professor or your classmates or in the a group for the moot court discussion.

• Section 122 to Section 129 contained in Chapter VII of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with gifts. A gift is considered a gratuitous transfer as an existing property is transferred in favour of another person without consideration. A gift between living persons is intervivos (between the living) gift and it is a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 5 of this Act. 
• The following gifts do not come within the purview of this Act: 
  • Testamentary gift that is a gift by operation of law. 
  • A gift made in apprehension of death. 
• A gift is defined in Section 122 of the Act, which reads as follows: 
  • A gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. 
  • Acceptance when to be made – Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.

• A gift is said to be onerous when it is accompanied by a burden or obligation. 
  • This section is based on the maxim ‘qui sentit commodum sentire debetet onus’ which means that he who receives advantage must also bear the burden. 
• Section 127 of this Act deals with the concept of Onerous Gifts. It states that: 
  • Where a gift is in the form of a single transfer to the same person of several things of which one is, and the others are not burdened by an obligation, the donee can take nothing by the gift unless he accepts it fully. 
  • Where a gift is in the form of two or more separate and independent transfers to the same person of several things, the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and refuse the others, although the former may be beneficial and the latter onerous. 
• Onerous Gift to Disqualified Person - A donee not competent to contract and accept a property which, burdened by any obligation, is not bound by his acceptance. But if, after becoming competent to contract and being aware of the obligation, he retains the property given, he becomes so bound.
• Article 23 and Article 24 under Part III of the Constitution of India are a part of Right against Exploitation. 
• Article 23 lays down about prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labor. 
• Clause (1) lays down : 
  • Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labor are prohibited. 
  • Any contravention of this provisions shall be an offence and punishable in accordance with law.   
• Clause (2) lays down an exception and lays down that: 
  • Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. 
• Reference  "Smt. Naresh Kumari & Others v. Smt. Chameli & Others. " decided by Supreme Court

Originally posted by : Radhika
	But it's a conditional gift deed. Also, Supreme Court in S. Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar, (2018) 16 SCC 126 held that where a gift deed was conditional and the donor retained possession and control, the transfer did not amount to a completed gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Have you read the Judgment? The facts in that case could be distinguished from the imbroglio that you have posted.

Yes thanks for pointing that out, the case that I cited is a condition precedent case. Whereas my problem is more about condition precedent. Even if I prove somehow that contingent interest is not vested using section 27 part b and also using some precedents to prove that the doctrine of acceleration is not applicable. I still cannot show as to how the cancellation of deed was valid. Maybe I can go on and say that there was a revocation clause in the deed and then use section 126 of TPA for the same. But then again I cannot assume much as the information or the actual deed is not provided.