Factual Background and Procedural History
In its judgment dated March 24, 2025, in the case of N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors., the Supreme Court of India settled a long-standing property dispute centered on the interpretation of a dispositive document.
The origin of the dispute traces back to June 26, 1985, when a father executed a registered document, titled “Dhananischayaadharam” (Ext.A1), concerning the suit schedule property in favour of his daughter, the Respondent No.1. Years later, on October 19, 1993, the father executed a deed of cancellation (Ext.A2) for the 1985 document and, on the same day, executed a sale deed (Ext.A3) for the same property in favour of his son, the Appellant.
This led the daughter to file a suit (O.S.No.27 of 1994) before the Sub Court, Cherthala, seeking a declaration of her title based on the 1985 deed and a declaration that the subsequent cancellation and sale deeds were null and void. The father, who was Defendant No. 1, passed away during the pendency of the suit on January 6, 1995.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the 1985 document was a Will, not a gift. This decision was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on December 20, 2003. The daughter then preferred a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court of Kerala. On June 10, 2019, the High Court overturned the concurrent findings of the lower courts, construing the 1985 document as a gift deed and granting a decree in the daughter’s favour. Aggrieved by this reversal, the son filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court framed the central legal question as twofold:
Whether the document executed in 1985 should be legally characterized as a gift, a settlement, or a Will.
Whether the legal requirements and the conditions stipulated in the deed were fulfilled to vest a legal right in the property to the daughter.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions (The Son)
- The 1985 document was a Will, not a gift, primarily because the disposition of interest was not immediate (in praesenti) but was intended to take effect only after the death of the executant.
- The father had retained possession of the property, a key feature of a testamentary disposition.
- Even if construed as a gift, it was never validly accepted by the daughter during the father’s lifetime and was therefore incomplete and not acted upon.
- As a Will, the document was inherently revocable, and the father was within his rights to cancel it and subsequently sell the property to the son.
- Post the 1993 sale, the appellant took possession, effected mutation in revenue records, and paid the requisite taxes.
Respondent’s Contentions (The Daughter)
- The 1985 document was a valid gift deed that satisfied all requirements of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it was a voluntary transfer without consideration.
- The act of presenting the deed for registration constituted valid acceptance of the gift during the donor’s lifetime.
- The father had only reserved limited rights for himself and his wife, namely the right to income and the right to mortgage the property up to ₹2,000, which does not negate the absolute transfer of ownership.
- Relying on Reninkuntala Rajamma v. K.Sarwanamma, the respondent argued that the physical transfer of possession is not essential for a valid gift.
- Under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, a completed gift cannot be unilaterally revoked, making the cancellation deed void. This argument was supported by the precedent in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam.
- Mutation in revenue records does not create or extinguish title, citing Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles distinguishing gifts, settlements, and wills before applying them to the specific recitals of the 1985 deed.
Distinguishing Between Gift, Settlement, and Will
The Court began by meticulously defining the three instruments. A gift, under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a voluntary, non-consideration transfer of existing property accepted during the donor’s lifetime. A settlement is a non-testamentary disposition, often for non-monetary consideration like love and affection, where a life interest can be reserved. A Will, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is a revocable testamentary document that takes effect only after the testator’s death.
The Court affirmed that the primary test is whether the disposition of interest is in praesenti (immediate), which characterizes a gift or settlement, or is postponed until the death of the executant, which signifies a Will. The nomenclature of the document is immaterial; its substance must be ascertained by reading it as a whole.
Interpretation of the 1985 Deed
Applying these principles, the Court closely examined the text of the 1985 deed. It found several indicators of an immediate transfer:
- The phrase “properties are herein conveyed to you” clearly indicated an immediate transfer of rights (in praesenti).
- The reservation of a life interest for the father and mother to enjoy the income did not negate the transfer of ownership. The Court held that by reserving only specific rights, the father had implicitly ceased to be the absolute owner.
- The deed explicitly granted the daughter the right to make constructions and pay taxes “Now onwards,” further confirming the immediate vesting of rights.
Doctrine of Repugnant Clauses
The Court addressed the appellant’s argument that a later clause—stating the daughter could “possess and enjoy the scheduled property… after the lifetime of me and Janaki Amma”—postponed the transfer. The Court rejected this, holding that this was merely an ancillary clause qualifying the daughter’s right to physically reside on the property after the parents’ life interests ceased.
Crucially, the Court invoked the doctrine of repugnant clauses. It held that even if the later clause were deemed repugnant, the established legal principle is that if an earlier part of a document confers an absolute and unambiguous title, any subsequent clause that conflicts with or takes away from that absolute title must be disregarded as invalid. The Court relied on a line of precedents, including Mauleshwar Mani v. Jagdish Prasad and Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta, to affirm that the initial clear conveyance of property must prevail.
Acceptance and Revocation of the Gift
The Court found that the gift had been validly accepted. It reiterated the settled law that delivery of possession is not a sine qua non for a valid gift. The daughter’s possession of the original title deed and the act of registering the instrument were considered sufficient conduct to prove acceptance.
Since the document was a “gift by settlement” that had been validly executed and accepted, it became irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, the father had no right to unilaterally cancel it, rendering the cancellation deed (Ext.A2) and the subsequent sale deed (Ext.A3) void and invalid.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the 1985 document was a gift by settlement, not a Will. The key legal principles laid down are:
The true nature of a document is determined by its substance and the intention to transfer interest in praesenti, not by its title or nomenclature.
The reservation of a life interest by the donor does not prevent the vesting of title in the donee and is a permissible condition in a settlement deed
In case of a conflict within a deed, an earlier clause creating an absolute interest will prevail over a later, repugnant clause that seeks to restrict that interest.
Acceptance of a gift can be inferred from the conduct of the donee, such as registering the deed; it does not strictly require physical delivery of possession. A completed gift is irrevocable.
FAQs:
1. Can I gift my property but continue to live in it and receive income from it?
Yes. You can execute a gift or settlement deed where you transfer the ownership of the property to someone immediately but include a clause reserving a “life interest” for yourself. This allows you to possess the property, live in it, and enjoy its income for the rest of your life. This reservation does not invalidate the transfer of ownership to the new owner (the donee).
2. Is taking physical possession of a property necessary to make a gift legally valid?
No. While taking physical possession is strong evidence that a gift has been accepted, it is not a mandatory legal requirement for a gift of immovable property to be valid. The law states that a gift must be “accepted.” This acceptance can be proven through other actions, such as the recipient taking possession of the original registered gift deed or getting the property records updated in their name.
3. Can a person take back a property after giving it away through a registered gift deed?
Generally, no. Once a gift is complete—meaning it has been made through a registered document, signed by the donor, attested by witnesses, and accepted by the donee—it becomes irrevocable. The donor cannot unilaterally cancel the gift deed or take the property back unless the deed itself contained a specific condition allowing for revocation, which was agreed upon by both parties from the beginning.
4. What happens if a legal document like a will or gift deed has contradictory clauses?
Courts follow a rule of construction to resolve contradictions. A well-established principle is that if an earlier clause in a document clearly and absolutely gives a property to a person, and a later clause attempts to take away or restrict that absolute right in a contradictory way, the earlier clause will prevail. The later, conflicting (or repugnant) clause is often considered invalid.
5. Does the title of a document, like “Will” or “Gift Deed,” decide its legal nature?
No, the title is not the deciding factor. Courts look at the actual substance and content of the entire document to determine its true legal character. A document might be called a “Will” but if its clauses show an intention to transfer ownership immediately, it may be treated as a gift or settlement. Conversely, a document titled “Gift Deed” that clearly states the property transfer will only happen after the maker’s death will be treated as a Will.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.