In a recent judgment of the case – Daulat Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives v. The State of Rajasthan & Others, delivered on December 8, 2020, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Suryakant have declared that being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance of gift can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee (receiver). This position has been reiterated by the SC in the case of Asokan v. Lakshmikutty-(2007)13 SCC 210.
Through this decision the SC has reiterated, “Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift, acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance”.
The recitals in the gift deed itself clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed.
The circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. Not only the gift deed in itself contained recitals about transfer of possession, but also the mutation records and statements of the both the donor and donee indicate that, there has been an acceptance of the gift by conduct.
The respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property. In light of the same, the Single Judge Bench took a plausible view that, it was a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately.
Lastly, it ought to be noted that apart from the point of acceptance by the donee as held above since the deed is registered, bears the signature of the donor and has been attested by two witnesses. This fulfils the requirements under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.This settled the issue in favour of the appellant with the answer of the Supreme Court in affirmative that the gift deed executed by the appellant is valid in the eyes of law.
Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides that for a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature and must be made voluntarily. The said giving away implies a complete dispossession of the ownership in the property given in gift.
The Court of the Additional District Collector, Pali had declared on October28, 1988 that the mutation of land done in favour of the son of the appellant was invalid as there was no acceptance of the gift. It was declared therein the appellant was holding 11 acres of extra land over and above the ceiling limit. The Collector, therefore, directed the appellant to handover vacant possession of the 11 acres of extra land to the Tahsildar, Pali.
The aggrieved appellant filed appeal before the Board of Revenue, which through its order on July 2, 1990, modified the Collector’s order and upon re-calculation held that the appellant is holding 4.5 standard acres of land in excess of the ceiling limit. According to the Board, “it is irrelevant that after the gift the land remained in possession of the donee or that he got it mutated in his name”. Relying upon this observation, the HC division bench stated that there was no valid acceptance as it seems like the donee was unaware about the gift deed itself.
At the outset, it ought to be noted that section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor does it prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift.
The word “acceptance” is defined as “is the receipt of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as acceptance of a gift.”( Ramnataha P. Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn. Page19).
The facts can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in possession of the gift deed itself .The only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself.
In order to show acceptance, the appellant’s counsel drew attention of the SC to the mutation records. The Mutation entry of October28, 1968 clearly reflects that half portion of appellant’s land was bestowed as a gift by the appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift on December 19, 1963.
This and other circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. Not only the gift deed in itself contained recitals about transfer of possession, but also the mutation records and the statements of both the donor and donee indicate that, there has been an acceptance of the gift by conduct.
The provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973 are not attracted in this case as the case was re-opened and decided under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1955. Secondly, section 6 of the Ceiling Act of the 1973 declares that every transfer of land including by way of gift, made on or after September 26, 1970 and before January 1, 1973, shall be deemed to have been made to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
In this case, the gift deed was executed on December 19, 1963, that is much before September 26, 1970. Therefore, also section 6 of the Ceiling Act, does not affect the transfer of land by the appellant-donor in favour of the donee-son. Thirdly, there is no finding that the gift deed in the present case was actuated upon any extraneous consideration. Hence, it constitutes a bona fide transfer which is exempted from the rigors of section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
The SC has set aside the judgment of the HC division bench and allowed the appeal.
