Gift Deed In Favour Of Live-In Partner : Supreme Court Says Courts Should Not Pass 'Value Judgment' On Relationship Between Donor & Donee If There Is Valid Execution

"Thus, we would in the end say that it is time that Courts get out of this mindset …to pass value judgment on relationships in determining either testamentary or non-testamentary disposition so long as the document executed is found to be validly so done."

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh deprecated the approach of the trial court and the First Appellate Court, which while determining whether the gift deed was invalid had gone into the nature of relationship between the donor and the donee. The said Courts had found that execution of the gift deed was "illegal and immoral" as the donee was a woman the donor was living with and not his wife.

"Some kind of male chauvinistic approach appears to have coloured the judgments passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which is of course the reflection of the mindset of the appellants before us. We thus dismiss the appeal with cost and bring half a decade of litigation to an end", the bench observed.

At the outset Senior Advocates, Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr. Manoj Swarup appearing on behalf of the appellants, put forth in brief the factual conspectus of the case.

A suit was filed by the appellants (now deceased and represented through legal representatives) on 19.10.1971 for declaration to the effect that a gift deed executed by their brother, Gian Singh in favour of one Pritam Kaur in respect to concerned properties is null and void and is not binding on the rights of the appellants as reversioners. The appellants had pleaded that Gian Singh was issueless and without a wife. It was asserted that the appellants were the nearest legal heirs of Gian Singh.

It was contended that being governed by General Customary Law of Punjab in the matters of alienation, inheritance and adoption, Gian Singh could not have executed the gift deed in favour of one Pritam Kaur, daughter of Gurbax Singh who was not related to Gian Singh in any manner whatsoever. On 29.11.1971, Gian Singh and Pritam Kaur filed a joint written statement defending the execution of the gift deed. It was also highlighted that the two had been married for 35 years. Thereafter, on 24.01.1972, Gian Singh passed away. In view of the same, the appellants sought to amend the plaint seeking a decree of possession and declaration of ownership of the concerned property. By order dated 03.11.1973 the trial court dismissed the suit stating that the proceeding would be governed by the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1971 which precluded passing a decree declaring alienation of ancestral property to be invalid. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. In the regular second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below. The matter came up to the Apex Court, which remanded it back to the High Court to be decided in accordance with Hindu law.

The Single Judge of the High Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court vide order dated 27.04.1995 to decide the matter afresh. In the meantime, even Pritam Kaur had passed away on 18.06.1992. During her lifetime she had executed a will in favour of her nephew, Mal Singh (deceased-respondent represented through legal heir).

It was brought to the notice of the trial court by Mal Singh that Pritam Kaur had sold some of the suit properties to different persons. In a replication dated 21.11.1995 filed by him it was averred that Pritam Kaur, daughter of Inder Singh was the wife of Gyan Singh and she had died on 02.02.1968 and he along with some other were the legal heirs of the said Pritam Kaur.

The trial court vide order dated 26.08.1998 passed a decree of declaration and possession to the effect that the appellants are the owners of suit property being the brothers of Gian Singh. It was further declared that they had reversionary right in suit properties because Gian Singh died issueless and his wife had predeceased him. The First Appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial court. In appeal that High Court set aside the order of the courts below on the ground that the only issue that had to be decided by the trial court pursuant to the remission order passed by the Supreme Court, was the impact of Hindu Law with reversionary rights being excluded.

Mr. Mehta, inter alia, submitted that the gift deed was invalid because it was executed under the undue influence of Pritam Kaur, who was not related to Gian Singh.

Justice Kaul stated that the relation between Pritam and Gian was irrelevant and the only case that the appellants had was to prove that the concerned properties were ancestral in nature.

"Whether wife or not wife, whatever the position is, he wants to give something to somebody and he has come in the proceedings before the court and affirmed that he had gifted it. You are nobody to challenge the gift deed. The only question would be if the nature and character of property is such that you have a share in it and your portion of the share is transferred by gift deed."

He further added -

"Only because a person stays with a woman, is it under influence? You say he should not give it to somebody who had spent time with him as a companion?"

Mr. Mehta and later Mr. Swarup apprised the Bench that there were concurrent findings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court with respect to the gift deed being executed under undue influence. It was pointed out that seven days after the gift deed was executed, Pritam Kaur had attempted to sell the concerned properties and five days after the death of Gian Singh she had executed a will in favour of her nephew who was a witness to the execution of the gift deed. Considering that Pritam Kaur, suspiciously, wanted to dispose of the property in haste, the appellants assailed the validity of the gift deed.

Justice Sundresh stated that the relation between Pritam Kaur and Gian Singh and the subsequent act of Pritam Kaur were irrelevant considerations in the present case.

Justice Kaul reckoned -

"I acquired some property. I am issueless without a wife. Whether I give it to charity; a woman I stay with, it is registered gift deed. What is it to do with you?...You were not taking care of your brother, someone else was. He gave it to them."

Justices Sundresh pointed out that the first case of the appellants was that the property was ancestral in character and when that failed the validity of the gift deed was questioned.

Critical of the approach taken the appellants to get the property by any means, Justice Kaul further remarked -

"You are saying give the property one way or the other."

It was noted by the Bench that the assertion regarding the invalidity of the gift deed, which was claimed to have been obtained by undue influence, was based on decisions of High Courts which have become outdated.

"This was predicated on the earlier views of the Punjab High Court and Patna High Court in the vintage year 1952 and 1948."

The Bench was of the opinion that the execution could not have been questioned when Gian Singh himself had vouched for it by filing an affidavit before the trial court in the first round of litigation.

"The common written statement filed by Gian Singh and Pritam Kaur affirmed the execution of the gift deed. The fact that they did not step into the witness box is an incidence of Gian Singh passing away and much later Pritam Kaur also having passed away. That does not take away from the validity of the gift deed."

It added -

"We are really not concerned on the moralistic issue whether Pritam Kaur was actually married to Gian Singh as second wife or she was just leaving with him. In his wisdom, he deemed it appropriate to hand over the gift deed to Pritam Kaur."

The Bench noted that there were concurrent findings that the suit properties were not ancestral in charter. It also observed that the First Appellate Court had noted that appellants have half-heartedly admitted the execution of the gift deed, but had challenged it on the grounds of fraud and illegality.

The finding that the Bench thought was most crucial was that the Courts below the High Court had held that the consideration for execution of the gift deed was illegal and immoral as Pritam Kaur, daughter of Gurbax Singh did not prove her marriage to Gian Singh. They also found the deed to be invalid.

The Bench was perturbed to note that based on an outdated social belief the trial court and the First Appellate Court had considered the object of the gift deed to be immoral and improper.

"The whole approach of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the third round is completely fallacious. If one may say the reasoning is based on a social belief that the man staying with a woman whether wife or not, giving his property to her is something immoral and improper and she should not be the beneficiary of gift deed even if the donor stands by the gift deed."

The outlook of the appellants were also put to question. The Bench was of the opinion that the appellants had assumed an inherent right to the property of their elder brother, even when there was a concurrent finding that the property was not ancestral and Gian Singh had the right to transfer it whosoever he pleased to.

"Even the belief of the original plaintiff and appellants before us is predicated on this prejudice that they have some inherent right to get the benefit of the property, as the brothers of the deceased and the lady who stayed with him, wife or not, should not be entitled the same. In these circumstances, one of the issues framed originally was whether Pritam Kaur enjoyed the status of a wife or not. In our view, if the donor is making a gift out of his own free will and volition and is the exclusive owner of the property, it is nobody's concern as to who he gives the property to."

[Case title: Mohinder Singh (D) The. Lrs. And Ors. v. Mal Singh (D) Through. Lrs. And Ors. C.A. No. 1731 of 2009]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Headnotes

Registered Gift Deed - Donor is an exclusive owner of property - the Courts below had categorically found that they are not ancestral properties - donor gifted the properties out of his own will and volition - they could have gifted it to anybody they so chose.

Registered Gift Deed - Donor and donee affirmed execution by a common written statement - their not stepping into the witness box would not take away the validity of the gift deed - Courts need not be concerned with the moralistic issue, whether the donee was the wife or companion of the donor.

Determination of testamentary or non-testamentary disposition - the documents executed are validly executed - Courts should refrain from passing value judgments on relationships between parties - in their determination, Courts below have taken a male chauvinistic approach - their reasoning is based only on a social belief that the man staying with a woman, who is not his wife and giving his property to her is something immoral and improper and she should not be the beneficiary of gift deed even if the donor stands by the gift deed.

Click here to read/download the order