Revocation of Gift Deeds in Indian Law

Revocation of Gift Deeds in Indian Law: A Scholarly Analysis

I. Introduction

The concept of 'gift' (Hiba) is an established mode of transfer of property, recognized under various personal laws and codified primarily within the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter "TPA"). A gift, being a gratuitous transfer, signifies the donor's benevolence. However, circumstances may arise where a donor might wish to revoke a gift. The legal framework surrounding the revocation of gift deeds in India is stringent, aiming to balance the donor's original intent with the security of title for the donee. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the principles governing the revocation of gift deeds under Indian law, drawing extensively upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, particularly those provided as reference materials.

II. The Legal Framework for Gifts and Their Revocation

A. Defining a Valid Gift: Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Before delving into revocation, it is imperative to understand what constitutes a valid gift. Section 122 of the TPA defines a 'gift' as the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable 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. 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.

Section 123 of the TPA stipulates the formalities for effecting a gift. For immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses. For movable property, transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery. The Supreme Court in Renikuntla Rajamma (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. K. Sarwanamma (2014 SCC 9 445, Supreme Court Of India, 2014) clarified that delivery of possession is not essential for the validity of a gift deed of immovable property if the requirements of Section 123, including registered instrument and attestation, are met, and the deed shows clear transfer of title. The Court noted that retention of possession or usufruct by the donor does not invalidate the gift, provided the transfer of title is absolute.

The acceptance of a gift is crucial. In K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam And Others (2004 SCC 1 581, Supreme Court Of India, 2003), the Supreme Court held that a minor is competent to accept a non-onerous gift, and such acceptance can be express or implied. The Court observed that where a gift is made by a parent to a child, there is a presumption of acceptance, and non-repudiation by the minor on attaining majority can confirm such acceptance, even if the donor retained possession and enjoyment during their lifetime. A "completed gift" is a prerequisite for the discussion of its revocation. As indicated in S. Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar (2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2200, Supreme Court Of India, 2018), if a document styled as a gift deed is executed for consideration, it may not be treated as a formal instrument of gift, and the question of its "cancellation" might arise if it was not a "completed gift" in the true sense.

B. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Grounds for Revocation

The primary statutory provision governing the revocation of gifts is Section 126 of the TPA. It lays down specific and limited circumstances under which a gift may be suspended or revoked. The Supreme Court in N.THAJUDEEN v. TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD (Supreme Court Of India, 2024) lucidly outlined these contingencies:

  1. Where the donor and donee agree that on the happening of any specified event, which does not depend on the will of the donor, a gift shall be suspended or revoked.
  2. A gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.
  3. A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Such grounds typically include fraud, coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation (Sehdev Singh Verma v. J P S Verma & Anr. S, Delhi High Court, 2015; Mool Raj v. Jamna Devi And Others, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 1994; Baldev Singh v. Surinder Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others S, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2016; Narayanasamy v. Parvathi Ammal (Died) Others, Madras High Court, 2008).

Crucially, Section 126 concludes with the statement: "Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked." This underscores the general principle of irrevocability of completed gifts, as also emphasized in cases like S. Sarojini Amma (Supreme Court Of India, 2018), S. Thiagarajan v. Saraswathy Kittu And 6 Others S (Madras High Court, 1999), and Meenakshiammal v. Ramasamy Muthiriar And Ors. (Madras High Court, 1998). Section 126 also protects the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.

III. Judicial Interpretation of Revocation Principles

A. Absence of Reserved Power of Revocation

A consistent line of judicial decisions holds that if a donor does not reserve a power of revocation in the gift deed itself, the gift, once complete and accepted, becomes irrevocable. The Madras High Court in S. Thiagarajan (Madras High Court, 1999) and Meenakshiammal (Madras High Court, 1998) reiterated the principle: "if a man will improvidently bind himself up by voluntary deed, and not reserve a liberty to himself by a power of revocation, the court will not loose the fetters he has put upon himself." This sentiment was echoed by the Allahabad High Court in Balbhadar Singh v. Lakshmi Bai (Allahabad High Court, 1930) and more recently by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srigiri Venkata Ramanamma (Died) as L.R.s v. Srigiri Sri Venkateswara Rao (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2023).

B. Conditional Gifts and Revocation

The interplay between conditional gifts and revocation is complex. A mere expectation or pious wish of the donor, such as an expectation of future services or maintenance, may not automatically render a gift conditional in a manner that allows revocation upon non-fulfillment, unless it falls within the specific clauses of Section 126.

In Mool Raj v. Jamna Devi And Others (1994 SCC ONLINE HP 30, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 1994), a gift deed was pleaded to be conditional upon the donees rendering services. The court considered revocation if the condition was breached, linking it to the rescission principles of contracts. Similarly, in Tokha v. Smt. Biru And Others (2002 SCC ONLINE HP 43, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2002), a gift made for providing services was sought to be revoked upon failure. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Parveen Kumar v. Sarojni Devi And Another S (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2014) held a gift deed unconditional and thus not revocable on account of failure to render services, distinguishing it from cases like Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj v. Ramesh Chandra ((2001) 5 SCC 18) where property was gifted for a specific charitable purpose with an explicit condition for reversion upon non-fulfillment.

The Karnataka High Court in Narayanamma v. Papanna (Karnataka High Court, 1987) debated whether a recital for maintenance in a gift deed implies a right to revoke or merely allows enforcement of maintenance or cancellation through court. The Patna High Court in Shaikh Ali Jan And Others v. Mt. Phaguni (1950 SCC ONLINE PAT 8, Patna High Court, 1950) treated a suit for revocation as maintainable where the donees failed to maintain the donor as undertaken in the gift deed, considering it a failure of the "return" for the gift, and held that revocation in such cases requires a court decree. In Murukipudi Ankamma v. Tummalacheruvu Narasayya And Others. (1946 SCC ONLINE MAD 77, Madras High Court, 1946), the court examined whether a gift made for looking after the donor could be revoked when the donee allegedly failed to do so.

It is crucial to distinguish these from situations where the "gift" itself is questionable due to consideration. In S. Sarojini Amma (Supreme Court Of India, 2018), the Supreme Court considered whether a document styled as a gift deed but executed for consideration (part paid, part promised) could be treated as a gift, implying that if it's not a true gift (i.e., without consideration as per Section 122), its "cancellation" might be governed by different principles than the "revocation" under Section 126.

C. Revocation on Grounds of Vitiating Factors (Fraud, Undue Influence, etc.)

The third limb of Section 126 allows revocation of a gift on grounds that would permit rescission of a contract. These include fraud, coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation. Several High Court judgments affirm this, such as Sehdev Singh Verma (Delhi High Court, 2015), where revocation was sought on grounds of fraud/undue influence, and Mool Raj (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 1994), which explicitly links revocation to voidable contracts due to such factors. The onus of proving these vitiating circumstances lies heavily on the party alleging them.

D. Unilateral Revocation and Role of Registering Authorities

A significant practical aspect is whether a donor can unilaterally revoke a gift by executing a cancellation deed. The Madras High Court in V. Devika Rani And Others v. R. Varadarajulu And Others (Madras High Court, 2019) held that a Sub-Registrar could not register a cancellation deed unilaterally without the consent of the donee, and disputes regarding the validity of revocation must be determined by a Civil Court. This aligns with the principle that a completed gift divests the donor of title, and such title cannot be re-vested merely by a unilateral act of revocation, unless specifically permitted by Section 126 and often requiring judicial intervention, as suggested in Shaikh Ali Jan (Patna High Court, 1950).

E. Effect of Acceptance and Completion of Gift

The completion of a gift, marked by offer, acceptance, and adherence to statutory formalities (like registration for immovable property), is pivotal. Once a gift is complete, its irrevocability, save for Section 126 exceptions, is established. The Supreme Court in K. Balakrishnan (Supreme Court Of India, 2003) emphasized that once a gift is accepted (even by a minor, implicitly), it becomes irrevocable. The ruling in Renikuntla Rajamma (Supreme Court Of India, 2014) reinforces that retention of possession by the donor does not negate a completed transfer of title. Furthermore, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Baldev Singh (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2016), citing the Supreme Court, noted that once a gift is complete, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot generally be a ground for rescission of a valid gift.

F. Revocation Before Registration

An interesting point arises from SMT.SHEEL ARORA v. MADAN M.BAJAJ & ORS. (Bombay High Court, 2007), where a gift deed was revoked by the donor before its registration. The court held that the property could not be said to have been transferred. Section 123 of the TPA mandates a registered instrument for gifts of immovable property. If revocation occurs before this crucial step is completed, the gift may not have been legally "effected," thereby precluding the question of revoking a "completed" gift.

IV. Procedural Aspects and Appellate Review

Disputes concerning the revocation of gift deeds are typically adjudicated by Civil Courts (V. Devika Rani, Madras High Court, 2019). While not directly related to the substantive law of gift revocation, general principles of procedural fairness, such as natural justice as discussed in Lala Shri Bhagwan & Another v. Shri Ram Chand & Another Respondants (1965 AIR SC 1767, Supreme Court Of India, 1965) for quasi-judicial proceedings, underscore the importance of due process in any adjudicatory mechanism affecting rights.

In appeals arising from such disputes, particularly second appeals to the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the scope of review is limited. As established in Gurdev Kaur And Others v. Kaki And Others (2007 SCC 1 546, Supreme Court Of India, 2006), High Courts should not interfere with factual findings of lower courts unless a substantial question of law is involved. This is pertinent as grounds for revocation, such as fraud or the fulfillment of a condition, often involve factual determinations.

V. Conclusion

The law in India leans strongly towards the irrevocability of completed gifts. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides a narrow and exhaustive set of circumstances under which a gift can be revoked. These primarily include an agreement between parties for revocation based on a specified event not dependent on the donor's will, or on grounds that would allow for the rescission of a contract, such as fraud, coercion, or undue influence. A gift deed that allows revocation at the mere will of the donor is considered void to that extent.

Judicial pronouncements have consistently upheld that in the absence of a reserved power of revocation in the deed itself, or the existence of vitiating contractual factors, a donor cannot unilaterally revoke a gift once it has been validly made and accepted. The expectation of services or maintenance, unless specifically framed as a condition leading to revocation under Section 126, generally does not entitle the donor to revoke the gift, though other remedies for breach of such undertakings might be available. The legal framework endeavors to protect the sanctity of voluntary transfers while ensuring that gifts made under duress or fraudulent circumstances can be undone through due legal process. Clear and unambiguous drafting of gift deeds, explicitly stating any conditions or agreed terms for revocation, is therefore of paramount importance to avoid future litigation.