Gift Deed Condition Requiring Donee To Give Perpetual Services Without Remuneration Is Forced Labour & Unconstitutional : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a gift deed 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.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale while considering an oral gift deed of 1953, which had a condition requiring donees and their successors to render services. In 1998, the successors of the donors filed a suit to reclaim the possession of the property on the ground that the donees(and their successors) had stopped rendering the services.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the decree passed by the trial court allowing the suit.

The Supreme Court noted that during the 1950s, ahead of many States passing land reform laws, big landlords and zamindars used to gift away surplus lands to their helpers, agricultural workers with such conditions so as to escape the clutches of the anti-zamindari statutes. The Court examined the present case in this historical context.

The Court observed that there was no occasion for the defendants to render the services as the appellants had left the village and now, when defendants have been enjoying peaceful possession of land for long, resumption of land in favour of appellants will not be justified. The Court also noted that the plaint did not have any specific averment regarding instances of denial of services. What was meant by these 'services' has nowhere been explained in the oral gift deed or the plaint.

While the Court said that the Transfer of Property Act, 1872 was not applicable to the then State of Punjab in 1953, the broad principles of justice, equity and good conscience contained in the statute are applicable. Reference was made to the judgments in Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh and Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char on the applicability of the general principles under the TP Act even if the Act by itself was not applicable.

Questioning the condition in the oral gift, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia observed :

"The condition is that the defendants have discontinued to serve the successors of the donor i.e. plaintiffs. Can such a condition ever be part of a gift?". Criticising the trial court for not asking this question, the judgment went on to add :

"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. It has to be remembered that this so-called rendering of “services”, was to be in perpetuity. It has to go on forever. What would this be, if not “begar” or forced labour. 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. Hence, 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."

At the same time, the Court held that such a condition will not make the gift void in the instant case, as the plaintiffs never questioned the validity of the gift. The Court read the condition in the gift deed as "past services". The condition for continued services cannot be read into the gift as it is opposed to the principles of equity, justice & good conscience.

"The only possible way therefore where the donees and their successors have continued to be in peaceful possession of the property for more than 45 years, is that there was never such a condition of rendering continuous services in the gift deed and services here meant only the “past services” rendered by the donees to the donor, or at best it may include services to be rendered by the donees to the original donor Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh, who passed away in the late 1950s. This is the only way it can be construed. In other words, the gift had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity as the plaintiffs would like us to read."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case : Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 980

Click here to read the judgment