INTRODUCTION: A voluntary transfer of personal property without consideration. A parting by owner with property without pecuniary consideration.

A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, rom one person to another, made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money 1. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines !"#T 2. Oral Gift of an Immoveable PropertyIn view of sec. 123 of Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immovable property, which is not registered, is bad in law and cannot pass any title to the donee. Any oral gift of immovable property cannot be made in view of the provisions of sec. 123. Mere delivery of possession witho t a written instr ment cannot confer any title
RECENT CASE-LA AS TO ORAL GI!T DEED:

1. $r. %athu &al 'aishi ( Anr. . vs !.S.)amal Advocate ( Anr on 12 *anuary, 2+1+, $elhi ,igh -ourt 2. Sneh !upta vs $evi Sarup ( .rs. on 1/ #ebruary, 2++0, Supreme -ourt of "ndia 1. Ashi2 Ali And .rs. vs Smt. 3asheeda )hatoon And Anr.,2++4 526 A7- 1182 8. 9t. A:bari ;egam vs 3ahmat ,usain And .rs. , A"3 1011 All 8<1 4. Smt. Sudha $evi And Anr. vs Smt. Shanti $evi,1004 526 ;&*3 1128 <. =iauddin Ahmed vs 9.A. 3aoof 5$ied6 ;y &r., 2++2 546 A&$ 81+ /. ,asan Ali vs ,afi> 9usta: Ali, 108< 526 7&% 1 8. 9ahboob Sahab vs Syed "smail ( .rs, 1004 A"3 12+4 0. -hota ?ddandu Sahib vs 9asthan ;i 5$ied6 And .rs., A"3 10/4 AP 2/1 1+. Shai: %urbi vs Pathan 9astanbi And .rs., 2++8 516 A&$ /10

"AT IS ONEROUS GI!T# .nerous gift is a gift made sub@ect to certain charges imposed by the donor on the donee. AThe rule is based on e2uity, which spea:s the person who accepts the benefit of a transaction must also accept the burden of the same. A "t applies e2ually to ,indus and 9ahomedans. $o i% Univer%al Donee# "llustrationB

1 2

;lac: s &aw $ictionary defines !"#T "Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donor, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

A is father. ! is son. A ma"es a gift of the whole property of his estate to !. A directs ! to pay his debts and then ! is a #niversal $onee. Th s, ! is liable to pay all debts of donor. %Section 128 of the Transfer of property Act spea:s about $onee. AThe foremost condition is the gift should consist of the whole property of the donor. A"n case of a gift pertaining to some portion of the property of donor, such donee is not a ?niversal donee. Deferen&e bet'een (( "iba(( an) ((Gift((:
,";A 5The 9ohammedan law6 i6 As to a valid gift, under 9ohammedan law, three essentials conditions are re2uiredB 5i6 declaration of gift by the donor 5ii6 an acceptance of the gift, eDpress or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and 5iii6 delivery of possession of the sub@ect of gift. !"#T 5The Cnglish law6 i6 As to rights in property, under The Cnglish law, is classified by a division on the basis of immoveable and moveable property. The essential conditions of a valid gift are 5i6 The absence of considerationE 5ii6 the donorE 5c6 the donee E5iii6 the sub@ectAmatterE 5iv6 the transferE and the acceptance

?niversal

Gift to "in)* 'oman *n)er "in)* La': 1. Any gift to women under ,indu &aw is sub@ect to special rules of construction. 2. 7hether such gift passes an absolute estate or limited estate depends upon the terms of the grant.
1. That too, it depends upon the eDpressions used in the terms of the

grant. 5Shali2 3am vs -haran@it16

8.

?nder partition or in lieu of maintenance, a ,indu woman ac2uires an absolute estate8.

4. 7here the property is ac2uired without preAeDisting right such as under a 7ill, gift, decree or award, her estate depends upon the terms of the instrument. <. A ,indu , whether belonging to the 9ita:shara or $yabhaga School, can ma:e a gift of hisFher separate as also self ac2uired estate sub@ect to the claims of those entitiled under the ,indu Adoption and 9aintenance Act.

1 8

5101+6 4/ "A 282 See section 18 516 and 526 of the The ,indu Succession Act 5Act GGG .# 104<6

/.

%o sooner does the donor relin2uish his right in the property followed by delivery of possession and acceptance by the donee than a gift is completed.

8. See sections 18 to 22 as wife, widowed daughterAinAlaw,minor illegitimate children, aged parents and others. 0. A 9ita:shara coparcener has no power to ma:e any gift of his coparcenery interest eDcept small gifts based on affection. 1+. The right of a wife or widow for maintenance attaches to her status so she can pursue the property even in the hands of a stranger ac2uiring the same with notice of her claim4.
I+PORTANT CASE-LA 1. 2. 1. 8. 4. <. /. 8. ON ((GI!T DEED((:

3ameshwar Pandey And Anr. vs Suresh Pandey ,2++/ 526 ;&*3 804 !iano vs Puran And .rs. ,A"3 2++< P , 1<+ )i:abhai Samsuddin vs -ollector .f Cstate $uty, A"3 10<0 !u@ 12< T.3. Sri:antaiah Setty vs ;ala:rishna And Another ,"&3 1000 )A3 2041 9st. %oor *ahan ;egum vs 9uft:har $ad )han And .rs. , A"3 10/+ All 1/+ ;ri@ 3a@ Singh 5$ead6 ;y &. 3s. ( .rs vs Sewa: 3am ( Anr ,A3" S"%!, A%$ .3S. 'S )A&&? A%$ .3S. , A"3 1042 All 180 'irendra Singh And .rs. vs )ashiram 5$eceased ;y &.3s.6 ,A"3 2++8 3a@ 10< 0. 9.9A% &A& 'S A%A%$" ;A" ( .3S,10/1 A"3 21// , Supreme -ourt of "ndia 1+. ,utchegowda vs Smt. *ayamma And Anr. ,"&3 100< )A3 1/ 11. &.'. Mohammad Aslam &han v. &halil l (ahman &han

$at are t$e important &on)ition% of a vali) ,ift "in)* La' # i6 3elin2uishment of one s proprietory right in the property. Het it should be without any consideration. ii6 9erely registering the gift deed does not afford to pass the title of the property. iii6 -reation of right of any person must be completed by acceptance. iv6 A gift is totally different from a surrender by a ,indu widow where she does not in fact or in law purport to transfer any interest in the property surrenders.
v6 "n addition to that in the case of -ar*namoyee v% +aya +oyi<, it

was observed that the widow simply withdraws herself from the estate and the reversioner steps into the inheritance as a matter of law.

4 3adha bai vs !opal, A"3 1088 ;om 4+ < A"3 1088 -al. page 88

vi6 Het, in the case of %arbada ;ai vs 9ahadeo, it was held that in case of transfer of the whole estate, the reversioner ta:es the same sub@ect to the liability for her maintenance. "t is thus vividly :nown that the reversioner is responsible for her debts, if she relin2uishes the same. vii6 7here delivery of possession is enough to complete the transaction of a gift, is abrogated under section 121 of the Transfer of Property Act. ,owever, the restrictions on power to enter into the transaction of gift under personal law eDist without any change.
RECENT CASE-LA AS TO SCRI.E O! GI!T DEED:

1. ;ri@ 3a@ Singh 5$ead6 ;y &. 3s. ( .rs vs Sewa: 3am ( Anr on 22 April, 1000, Supreme -ourt of "ndiaE 2. !iano vs Puran And .rs.,A"3 2++< P , 1<+E 1. 3am@eet 9ahto And .rs. vs ;aban 9ahto And .rs. ,2++1 586 *-3 2<8 *hrE 8. 3ameshwar Singh And .rs. vs ,arendra Singh And .rs. on 1+ %ovember, 2++/,Patna ,igh -ourtE 4. !urdial Singh And Another vs State .f Pun@ab And .thers on 1< *uly, 2++0 , Pun@abA,aryana ,igh -ourtE <. 9ahant 3attangiri vs -hairman "ndian 3ed -ross Society ... on 18 $ecember, 2++0, Pun@abA,aryana ,igh -ourtE /. Smt. Ta:ri $evi vs Smt. 3ama $ogra And .rs., A"3 1088 ,P 11E 8. Smt. -hinnamma And .rs. vs The $evanga Sangha And .rs., A"3 10/1 )ant 118 0. $hruba Sahu 5$ead6 And After ,im ... vs Paramananda Sahu., A"3 1081 .ri 28 1+. 9ost. 3am $ular $evi And .rs. vs Shri Satya %arayan Prasad And .rs., 2++2 516 ;&*3 1/4/E

Gift *n)er +o$amme)an La': 1. A hiba 5oral gift6 is an outAandAout transfer of some determinate thing or an incorporeal right, it is necessary that such thing or right must be in eDistence and can be transferred immediately. 2. "n the case of a gift of usufruct 5Ariat6 produce 59an2fi6 refers to rights which accrue from day to day in future. Such produce or use of a thing becomes property particle by particle as it is brought into being. The man2fi may thus be transferred by the donor during his lifetime by gift or by be2uest and be the sub@ect of gift even though they are not in eDistence at the time of the gift. 1. "n view of section 120 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that the rule of 9ahommedan &aw as to gifts is not affected under the said Act.

8. !enerally, This rule of 9ohammedan law is unaffected by the provisions of sec. 121, Transfer of property Act and, conse2uently, a registered instrument is not necessary to validate a gift of immovable property.
4. "n the case of Abdul 3ahim ( .rs. 's. S:. Abdul =abar ( .rs. 3eported in 52++06 < S-- 1<+ held thusB AI14. 7e may notice the definition of gift as contained in various teDtboo:s. "n 9ulla s Principles of 9ohammadan &aw the IhibaI is defined as a transfer of property made immediately without any eDchange by one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of later 5sic latter6. A.A.A. #y>ee in his .utlines of 9uhammadan &aw defined IgiftI in the following termsB IA 9A% may lawfully ma:e a gift of his property to another during his lifetimeE or he may give it away to someone after his death by will. The first is called a disposition inter vivosE the second, a testamentary disposition. 9uhammadan law permits both :inds of transfersE but while a disposition inter vivos is unfettered as to 2uantum, a testamentary disposition is limited to oneAthird of the net estate. 9uhammadan law allows a man to give away the whole of his property during his lifetime, but only oneAthird of it can be be2ueathed by will.I...I/ <. "n any gift by a 9ohammedan, three essential re2uirements have to

be complied with for a valid gift B 5i6 De&laration of the gift by the
donor. 5ii6 A&&eptan&e of t$e ,ift eDpressed or implied by or on behalf of the donee. 5iii6 Delivery of %*&$ po%%e%%ion of the sub@ect of the gift by the donor to the donee. 5Para 2+6. it was further observed that since the deed itself ma:es it clear that upto the date of the eDecution of this deed, the eDecutant was in possession, and there can be no oral gift without possession. Therefore, this document cannot be constituted to be a memorandum of gift but it is a gift deed itself. 5para 2168. /. "t was held in the case of ((Ashi2 Ali And .rs. 's Smt. 3asheeda )hatoon And Anr0 , that

in view of the provision under Section 120

of the Transfer of Property Act, the provision of Section 121 of the Transfer of Property Act shall not affect the validity of the gift under any rule of 9ohammedan &aw, so if an oral gift is there and the aforesaid three re2uirements are fulfilled, it cannot be ignored on the ground that a gift made by a 9ohammedan is not in accordance with Section 121 of the Transfer of Property Act but if
/ Smt.A@ambi 5$ead6 ;y &r. vs 3oshanbi And .thers on 1+ August, 2+1+

8 2++4 526 A7- 1182, Ashi2 Ali And .rs. 's Smt. 3asheeda )hatoon And Anr.
0

2++4 526 A7- 1182,

a gift deed is eDecuted, it is not eDempt from registration in accordance with the provision under Section 1/ of the 3egistration Act. Section 120 of the Transfer of Property Act does not eDempt the written gift deed eDecuted by a 9ohammedan. 8. 3egistration of a gift deed cannot cure a defect, as to condition of delivery of possession. 0. 9ohammedan law does not dispense with the necessity for a&&eptan&e of the gift even in cases where the donees are minors. 1+. The fundamental rule of 9ohammedan law as to gifts is that Ithe donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the sub@ect of the gift. 11.There must be a delivery of such possession as the sub@ect of the gift is susceptible of what delivery the property is capable of and whether such delivery as the property is capable of has been given would depend upon the particular facts in each case. 12. As to delivery of possession is concerned, irrespective of actual or constructive, the ultimate test of the delivery of possession is to see whether the donor or donee reaps the benefit. Revo&ation of ,ift )ee) *n)er +o$amme)an La': under the circumstances mentioned infra, A 9ohammedan can revo:e a gift even after delivery of possessionB i6 7hen the gift is made by a husband to his wife or by a wife to her husbandE ii6 when the donee is related to the donor within the prohibited degreesE iii6 when the gift is Sada:a 5i.e. made to a charity or for any religious purpose6. iv6 when the donee is deadE v6 when the thing given has passed out of the donee s possession by sale, gift or otherwiseE vi6 when the thing given is lost or destroyedE vii6 viii6 when the thing given has increased in value, whatever be the when the thing given is so changed that it cannot be cause of the increaseE identified, as when wheat is converted into flour by grindingE and

iD6 when the donor has received something in eDchange for the gift CDcept in those cases, a gift may be revo:ed at the mere will of the donor, whether he has or has not reserved to himself the power to revo:e it, but the revocation must be by a decree of court. IS REGISTRATION MANDATORY ? ?nder Section 121 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of property, which is not registered, is bad in law and cannot confer title to the donee. !ift $eed should be stamped and registered as re2uired. 9ere delivering possession without a written instrument cannot confer any title. A deed cannot be dispensed with even for a property of small value. Attestation by two witnesses is re2uired. This provision eDcludes every other mode of transfer and even if the intended donee is put in possession, a gift of property is invalid without a registered instrument. A gift made by a 9ohammedan is not in accordance with Section 121 of the Transfer of Property Act but if a gift deed is eDecuted, it is not eDempt from registration in accordance with the provision under Section 1/ of the 3egistration Act. Section 120 of the Transfer of Property Act does not eDempt the written gift deed eDecuted by a 9ohammedan.
RECENT CASE-LA AS TO REGISTRATION O! GI!T DEED: 1. Parbati vs ;ai@nath Patha: And Anr. 18 "nd -as <1 2. 'asudev 3amchandra Shelat vs Pranlal *ayanand Tha:ar And .rs ,10/8 A"3 1/28 1. #irm 9u:and &al 'eer )umar ( Anr vs Sri Purushottam Singh ( .rS,10<8 A"3 1182 8. ?daya %ai: vs &o:anath %ai: And .rs. ,A"3 1048 .ri 104 4. Ashi2 Ali And .rs. vs Smt. 3asheeda )hatoon And Anr. ,2++4 526 A7- 1182 <. Smt. San@u:ta 3ay vs ;imelendu 9ohanty And .rs. , A"3 100/ .ri 111 /. -hennupati 'en:atasubbamma vs %elluri %arayanaswami ,A"3 1048 9ad 214 8. ;hagabat ;asudev And .rs. vs Api ;ewa And .rs. ,A"3 10/8 .ri 18+ 0. 'etti:uti %aydamma 5$ied6 And ... vs 9uppara@u 9adhusudhana 3ao And , 100< 526 A&T 184 1+. #ateh Ali 5$ied6 Per &rs. And .rs. vs 9.A. Aleem And Anr. ,2++1 5<6 A&$ <11. RECENT CASE-LAE REGARDING ((STA+P DUT/ ON GI!T DEED((: 1. *wala Prasad vs State .f ?.P. And .rs. , 2++4 526 A7- 22/1 2. ,emnath ;y ,is &.3s. And .rs. vs *alam Singh , 1080 526 7&% 818 1. Smt.Alamma -hac:o vs The $istrict 3egistrar 5Audit6 on 22 #ebruary, 2++8 , )erala ,igh -ourt 8. 9s 9ayawati vs $y -ommissioner .f "ncomeATaD , 52++86 111 TT* $elhi 1/8 4. 3amchandra 'ishwanath !haisas ... vs The State .f 9aharashtra ,A"3 1081 ;om 1<8 <. 9aha 'idyalaya 5$egree -ollege6, ... vs State .f ?.P. ( .thers on 11 *anuary, 2+1+, Allahabad ,igh -ourt

/. ,emnath vs *alam Singh ,1 5100+6 7&% 3ev 40+ 8. $ulal -handra -hatter@ee And .rs. vs 9oni 9ohan 9u:her@ee And .rs. , 2++4 526 -,% 4<1 0. !iftATaD .fficer vs 3a@mata Shanta $evi P. !ae:wad ,2++1 /< "T$ 200 Ahd 1+. !litter ;uildcon Pvt. &td. vs 9r. San@ay !rover And .rs. , 2++1 '"A$ $elhi 21/ I+PORTANT CASE-LAE AS TO ((ATTESTATION O! GI!T DEED((: 1. ;ri@ 3a@ Singh 5$ead6 ;y &. 3s. ( .rs vs Sewa: 3am ( Anr on 22 April, 1000, Supreme -ourt of "ndia 2. T.3. Sri:antaiah Setty vs ;ala:rishna And Another ,"&3 1000 )A3 2041 1. ;albhadar Singh vs &a:shmi ;ai , A"3 101+ All <<0 8. ,ari Singh And .rs. vs )allu And .rs. , A"3 1042 All 180 4. ;ishwanath 3aut And .rs. vs ;abu 3am 3atan Singh And .rs. , A"3 104/ Pat 884 <. Alapati %agamma vs Alapati 'en:ataramayya And .rs. ,510146 <8 9&* 101 /. ;alappa Tippanna vs Asangappa 9allappa And Anr. , A"3 10<+ )ant 218 8. S. Sundaram And Anr. vs 3. $amodaraswami And Anr. ,5108<6 1 9&* 2+1 0. ,ar Prasad vs 9st. 3am $evi ,A"3 10<8 All <8 1+. ). &aDmanan vs The::ayil Padmini ( .rs. on 1 $ecember, 2++8 , Supreme -ourt of "ndia

RE0OCATION O! A GI!T: Section 12< of the Transfer of Property provides for conditions where a gift can be revo:ed. the following are essential ingredients for revocation of giftB i6 there must be an agreement between the donor and donee that the gift shall be suspended or revo:ed on the happening of a specified eventE ii6 such event must be one which does not depend upon the will of the donorE iii6 the condition as to the suspend or revocation should be agreed to by the donee at the time of accepting the gift. And, iv6 there must eDist a ground , eDcept want or failure of consideration, on which a contract may be rescinded. v6 the condition should not be illegal, or immoral and should not be repugnant to the estate created under the gift. vi6 Section 12< is controlled by sec. 1+. As such, a clause in the gift deed completely prohibiting alienation is void in view of the provisions contained in sec. 1+. vii6 A gift, which was not based on fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation nor was an onerous one, cannot be cancelled

unilaterally. Such a gift deed can be cancelled only by resorting to legal remedy in a competent court of law. CONCUSION: $espite the concept of eDpectation of reciprocity, a gift is :nown to be free. Any person who is the legal owner of a property can alone ma:e a gift of his property. ;asically, a ,ift i% t$e tran%fer of %omet$in, 'it$o*t &on%i)eration1 In ot$er 'or)%2 it &an be %ai) t$at a voluntary transfer of a property in consideration of love and affection to person is :nown as !"#T . "t is thus vividly :nown that ADA the chief characteristic of a gift is that it is a transfer without any consideration.