
Definition of gifts under TOPA
Section 122 of
the Trnasfer of Property Act defines a ‘gift’ as any transfer of a movable or
immovable property, which is made voluntarily by one person, often known as or
called the donor and the one on the receiving end being the donee. Here, an
essential for a transfer to be a gift is that it should be made without any
consideration whatsoever.
Essentials of a gift
1.
Acceptance
One of the most
necessary aspects of a gift is that it should be accepted by the donee. The
Kerela Hiigh Court in Janki Amma v K Gopalakurup and Ors.[1]
stated that the acceptance of the gift should be either express or implied and
it should be irrespective of the conduct of the parties. Here, the court stated
that every case should look into this question or issue based on the facts and
then decide accordingly. Lastly, the transfer of a gift is complete if accepted
only during the lifetime of the donor i.e wills or inheritance are not considered
as gifts.
2.
Voluntary act
As the name
suggests, a gift should be given voluntarily by the donor to the done, out of
love and affection. The simplest example can be that of a gift of a bike given
by a father to his daughter on her birthday. This is out of love and affection
for his daughter. Thus, if any gift is given out of coercion or undue
influence, it cannot be considered a gift, since it fails the essentials of a
voluntary gift. A pardanashin lady is someone, who, due to the culture of her
society is required to remain away from the public and is not exposed to the
same opportunities or exposure as opposed to a normal human and hence is in a
more vulnerable position with regards to commercial activities. Keeping in mind
that many people can misuse her and influence her for their own good, the law
scrutinizes the case more, when a pardanashin woman is involved. Thus, it must
be proven beyond doubt by the done that a ‘gift’ made by a pardanashin donor
was without any undue influence of any kind. Not just this, in Pratima
Chaudhary v Kalpana Mukherjee[2],
it was held that in case of a fiduciary relationship, burden of proof rests on
dominating party.
3.
Donor and Donee
As it is clear
from the name, a donor is the person who transfer the gift and the done is the
person on the receiving end. Any person who is capable of transfer of gifts can
do so. Thus, a minor, is not capable of giving gifts due to a lack of capacity.
Thus, a gift made by a minor is void.[3]
Now, the guardian of a minor may execute the gift on his/her behalf but only
with the express permission of the court. If this is not done, the gift is
rendered void.[4] However, a done can be a
minor because in this case, he is a beneficiary. With regards to a done, it
must be duly noted that a done has to be a living person and thus, a gift made
to a religious society cannot be considered as gift under the definition of
section 122. In a famous case,it was held that the transfer of property for the
creation of a dharmashala to a religious institution is not a gift under
Tansfer of Property Act since here, the done is not a living entity.[5]
4.
No Consideration
A gift is
supposed to be considered as one, since it is made out of love and affection to
a person. Thus, a gift in return for something is no gift at all. It was stated
in a case that even if the transfer is made for a less amount of money as
compared to the actual value, it would still not be a gift since there is the
consideration of money involved in it[6].
Although love and affection are the two emotions or driving forces behind a
transfer of property they will not be considerations under the law.[7]
Oral gifts
According to
Section 123 of the Act, for transfer of immovable property as a gift, it mustbe
registered by thedonor or on the donor’s behalf along with two witnesses on his
side. A movable property on the other hand, can be made by either through
registration or delivery. Thus, as regards to an immovable property, a gift
cannot be transferred orally. The Muslim law, however, permits the transfers of
immovable property as gifts orally. In such a case, there is another question
that arises; whether a donor can revoke his offer before the property has been
registered if the done has accepted the instrument of gift. It was held in
Atmaram Sakharam v Janardhan[8]
that the donor cannot revoke his offer even prior to the registration if the
gift instrument of immovable property has been accepted by the done.
Mohemeddan law
Section 129 of
the Act clearly states that it shall not affect any rule of the Muhammadan law.
Under Muslim law, a Hiba is a gift and has been meticulously defined as an
immediate transfer accepted by or on behalf of a person, specifically without
any exchange whatsoever. Under Muslim law, the essential features are the declaration
of a gift by the donor, the donee’s acceptance of said gift and lastly, the
delivery of possession of the subject matter of the gift to the very done
himself.
The declaration
of a gift must also entail a true intention of actually providing the said
person with a gift, otherside it shall
be declared void.[9] With regards to
acceptance, without an acceptance a gift is invalid. However, in case of a
minor the gift need not be accepted if the gift is made by a parent or
guardian. As opposed to the Transfer of Property Act, delivery, either actual
or constructive is necessary in Muslim law. Here, constructive can mean that
say tere are two donees in a particular transfer. The possession of property by
one of them could entail as a constructive delivery to both.
With regards to
the transfer of property act and the Muslim law, tere are certain noticeable
differences. For one, revocation under the act is not possible after transfer
of the gift, and discussed above even prior registration in some cases. However,
Muslim law allows revocation even after transfer through the consent of the
done and intervention of the court. Also, as discussed before transfer cannot
be made to a non living person in the Act but Muslim law allows and infact has
a provision for gits to religious institutions like mosques.
Controversies
In the past,
there have been a lot of controversies with regard to the separate provision
for Muslim laws under Section 129 of the Act. It has been considered as ultra
vires of the Indian constitution by few jurists and some still advocate for its
necessity. However, in a particular case, it was held that the separate
provision for Muslim law as regards to gifts was a reasonable classification
and not against Article 14 which guarantees equality under law. The court
stated that Article 14 allows reasonable classification and since the customs
and practices of Muslims are different than others, it is reasonable to have a
separate provision for Muslims.[10]
However, some judgments have a dissenting opinion on the issue. In a case[11],
Justice Krishna Iyer stated that some gifts are of secular nature and others
are of religious. Thus, those gifts of secular nature must be under the
Transfer of Property Act, irrespective of religion and those of religious
nature, say to a religious institution to the Muslim laws. However, in today’s
world it is very difficult to create a distinction between the two types of
gifts and thus, this judgment has faced a lot of criticism. The established
position of law is that the section 129, which separates the law from affecting
Muslim law is in fact valid and not ultra vires the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion
The Indian law
has seen a lot of changes with time. The interpretation of Section 129 if the
Transfer of Property Act is a very essential one, since there is a question of
equality and also a religious colour brought into this question. It is my
opinion that if the courts can clearly define what a secular gift is and what a
religious gift is, it shall be easier to understand Justice Iyer’s point of
view, since ideally everyone should be under the same law irrespective of
religion, with some reasonable exceptions. However, with the analysis of both
laws, it is clear that they both have some similarities and some disparities. Thus,
it can be observed that the settled law should remain as it is, since it
entails a reasonable classification keeping in mind the customs and traditions
of Muslims with regards to gifts.
BY-
Samruddhi Chiplunkar
Samruddhi
Chiplunkar is a BA LLB(Hons.) student from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
She has an interest in International Law and Constitutional Law, especially in
matters related to Fundamental Rights.
[1] 1969 KLR 355
[2] 2014 (4) SCC 196
[3] Patel prabhudas v Heirs of Kachrabhai.
[4][4]
Lakvinder Singh v Pramjit Kaur 2003 P H 36.
[5] Sri Ram Krishstate Krishna Mission v Dogra Singh AIR 1984 All 72.
[6] Tulsidas Kilachand v Commissioner of Incomme Tax AIR 1961 Sc 1023.
[7] Shakuntala v State of Haryana 1973 SCC 226.
[8] ILR 1925 (49) Bom 388.
[9] State of Up v Sayed Abdul Jain 1973 2 SCC 26.
[10] Bibi marinan v Mohammad Ishfaq
AIR 1963 Pat 229
[11] Makhu Ravtar v Mahapatra AIR 1972 Ker 27