{"id":7009,"date":"2025-03-27T07:50:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T02:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/gift-once-given-cannot-be-taken-back-scs-landmark-judgement\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:28:06","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T11:58:06","slug":"gift-once-given-cannot-be-taken-back-scs-landmark-judgement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7009","title":{"rendered":"Gift Once Given, Cannot Be Taken Back: SC\u2019s Landmark Judgement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

When a property transfer is made out of love and affection, with the donor retaining a life interest, it qualifies as a <\/span>settlement deed in the form of a gift,<\/strong> decreed the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court in a significant ruling. The court further clarified that once a <\/span>donee accepts such a settlement deed, the donor cannot revoke it.<\/strong><\/p>\n \n \n \n

<\/strong><\/p>\n \n \n \n

It also stated that reserving a life interest and postponing possession of delivery to the donee does not convert the document into a Will<\/strong>. Additionally, the court reaffirmed that delivery of possession is not a necessary requirement to validate a gift or settlement. Under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, a donor who retains life interest remains only an ostensible owner.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Case Background<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The bench heard a dispute regarding property ownership between a father and his children. The father had executed a registered settlement deed on June 26, 1985, in favour of his daughter (Respondent No.1) out of love and affection, while retaining a life interest and limited mortgage rights.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The deed granted the daughter the right to construct on the property and pay taxes, suggesting immediate ownership rights, though possession was to be taken after the father's death.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Later, the father unilaterally revoked the settlement deed and executed a sale deed in favour of his son (Appellant).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The daughter then filed a suit seeking recognition of her ownership rights, a declaration that the revocation and subsequent sale were null and void, and an injunction. The trial court and the first Appellate court ruled that the deed executed in 1985 functioned only as a Will and not a gift, dismissed the daughter’s suit by judgment dated 28.05.2001, thereby upholding the father’s right to revoke the transfer.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

However, the High Court reversed these decisions, declaring the<\/strong> document to be a gift deed and invalidating the father’s revocation and subsequent sale<\/strong>. The son then appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Legal Issue<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The issue for determination before the Supreme Court was whether the father’s settlement deed to his daughter constituted a gift, a settlement, or a Will, as this would affect its revocability and the validity of the subsequent transactions.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The appellant’s counsel proffered that the main test to find out whether the document constitutes a Will or gift is to see whether the disposition of interest in the property is in praesenti in favour of the settlee or whether the disposition is to take effect on the death of the executant.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Counsel for Respondent No.1 argued otherwise submitting that the ownership of the property has been transferred voluntarily to Respondent No.1 (donee) without any consideration and the same was accepted by the donee during the lifetime of defendant No.1 (father) by presenting the deed for registration hence all the requirements in accordance with Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act have been satisfied.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Supreme Court’s Decision<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The court upheld the High Court's ruling, distinguishing between a gift, a settlement, and a Will. It noted that:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n