Gift Conditioned Upon Perpetual Rendering of Services Without Any Remuneration Is Unconstitutional As It Amounts To Forced Labour: SC

The appellants-plaintiffs approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the second appeal of the respondents / defendants was allowed and the concurrent decisions of the courts below, which had decreed the suit, were set aside.

The Division bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia & Justice Prasanna B. Varale said, “We must also remember that when the gift deed was executed the Constitution of India had already been enforced. Article 14 and 21 and more particularly Article 23 prohibits forced labour.”

Advocate Vivek Singh appeared for the Appellants while AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal appeared for the Respondents.

In this case, the land was gifted by one Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh (donor) to Sanwalia, Ratiram and Sheochand, all sons of one Chhailu (donees) in 1953. The oral gift was duly executed, mutation was carried out and possession of the land was also given to the donees. However, after 45 years, a suit was filed in the year 1998 for declaration and for possession, or more precisely for resumption of this property.

The case of the plaintiffs was that they are the heirs of the erstwhile donor and that the suit land was gifted in lieu of the services, which had to be rendered by the donees and their heirs to the donor and his heirs lifelong. It was then asserted that since the defendants stopped rendering these services and the original donees died anyway, the suit land should revert to the plaintiffs in terms of the gift condition. The defendants contended that though the gift was for services rendered, there was no condition for the gift to revert to the donor upon the death of the donees.

The Trial Court concluded that the land was liable to be reverted in favour of the plaintiffs as the services had been stopped. Consequently, the suit was held to be within time and as the plaintiffs’ title was proved, the suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court agreed with these findings and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The High Court allowed the defendant’s second appeal and dismissed the suit.

The Bench noticed that the transaction which is the subject matter of the dispute admittedly occurred in December, 1953. This was the period immediately after independence where each State in the country had already framed or was in the process of framing legislation on land reforms with a focus on redistribution of land. Since land was in the State list (List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India), such legislation was being brought by almost every State in the country and Punjab was no exception.

Referring to Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 which had become effective on April 15,1953, the Bench explained that the big zamindars and land owners were fully conscious that they would not be able to retain land beyond the ceiling fixed by the Statute, which had an outer limit of 30 standard Acres for a family. The surplus land (beyond 30 acres) was to vest with the State. The land owners, therefore, either were gifting their land to their helpers, agricultural workers, even to priests or to temples, or in any other manner.

Noting that the present case was a purely civil matter, the Bench said, “The answer to this would be that civil matters will undoubtedly be decided on facts and law as they exist and as they are applicable, but again in order to appreciate the facts we have to keep the context in mind. Context is always very important.”

On the issue of long delay by the plaintiffs in seeking resumption of their so-called property, the Bench said, “It is a settled position of law that in cases of resumption of land or immovable property where there has been long and uninterrupted possession of the defendants, strong evidence is required to be placed by the plaintiffs to set up a claim, when the plaintiff is seeking a decree of possession.”

The Court further noticed that the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882(TPA) was not applicable to Punjab at that time but the broad principles in TPA based on equity, justice and good conscience, were definitely applicable. “Under TPA a valid gift can be made without giving immediate possession to the donee as has been held by this Court in Renikuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC 445 where it was held that section 123 of TPA supersedes Hindu Law and delivery of possession is not an essential requirement for the gift to be valid under provisions of TPA”, it further added.

The Bench also clarified that in cases governed by Hindu Law, possession is an extremely important ingredient where validity of the gift is to be determined. The Bench held that the condition as is being read by the plaintiffs where not only the donees but their successors were to continue giving services to the plaintiffs, that too indefinitely, is nothing short of reading forced labour, as a condition. As per the Bench, the gift had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity.

The Apex Court also explained, “Although Section 127 of TPA permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees.”

Stressing on the fact that the stipulated condition of “services” and the continuation of the rendering of such services has to be read in the context when the deed was executed, the Bench held that services shall be understood only as ‘past services’ rendered, or at most, the services which had to be rendered by the original donees to the original donor during his lifetime.

Thus, finding that the plaintiffs made no case, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 965]

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Vivek Singh, AOR Irshad Ahmad, AOR Ram Swarup Sharma

Respondents: AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Shubham Bhalla

Click here to read/download Order