A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addresses the legal validity of a gift deed and its revocation. The appellant, N. Thajudeen, executed a registered gift deed transferring property to the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent). The core issue revolved around whether the gift deed was validly executed, accepted, and acted upon, and whether its subsequent revocation was legally permissible. The trial court held the gift deed invalid, but the appellate court and High Court reversed this decision, deeming the gift valid and irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The case further examined the applicability of limitation laws under Articles 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the gift deed and rejecting the revocation deed.

Keywords: Gift Deed, Revocation, Transfer of Property Act, Limitation, Acceptance, Possession.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013
• iii) Judgment Date: 24 October 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
• vi) Author: Pankaj Mithal, J.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 952; 2024 INSC 817
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Articles 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None.
• x) Related Law Subjects: Property Law, Civil Procedure, Limitation Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute arose from a registered gift deed dated 05.03.1983, executed by the appellant in favor of the respondent for manufacturing purposes. The donor revoked the gift in 1987, alleging non-utilization of the property for its intended purpose. Subsequently, the respondent sought legal recourse for title declaration and possession recovery. Lower courts delivered divergent rulings, with the trial court dismissing the suit for lack of acceptance, while the appellate court and High Court affirmed the gift deed’s validity.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant executed a registered gift deed transferring ownership of 3750 square feet of property to the respondent on 05.03.1983.
2. The deed stated the property was for manufacturing Khadi Lungi and Yarn, with the condition that the property would not be transferred for the respondent’s self-interest.
3. The deed confirmed irrevocable transfer of title and acceptance of possession by the respondent.
4. The appellant revoked the deed on 17.08.1987, citing non-utilization of the property for its intended purpose.
5. The respondent filed a suit in 1991 for title declaration and possession recovery.
6. The trial court dismissed the suit, questioning the acceptance and validity of the deed.
7. The appellate court reversed this decision, affirming the deed’s validity and deeming the revocation void ab initio.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the gift deed was validly executed, accepted, and acted upon.
2. Whether the revocation of the gift deed was permissible under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that the gift deed lacked proper acceptance by the respondent.
2. The non-utilization of the property for its stipulated purpose violated the deed’s conditions, justifying revocation.
3. The suit was barred by limitation, as it was not filed within three years of the revocation date (Article 58 of the Limitation Act).

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent contended the gift deed was duly accepted, as evidenced by possession and subsequent mutation records.
2. The deed lacked any clause authorizing revocation, making the donor’s unilateral revocation void under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. The suit was within limitation, as Article 65 of the Limitation Act prescribed a 12-year period for possession recovery based on title.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
   • Section 126: Prohibits revocation of a gift except under specified contingencies.
2. Limitation Act, 1963:
   • Article 58: Three-year limitation for declaration of title.
   • Article 65: Twelve-year limitation for possession recovery based on title.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the gift deed was validly executed, accepted, and irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The absence of a revocation clause or contingencies invalidated the appellant’s revocation deed.

b. Obiter Dicta
Non-utilization of property for its stipulated purpose does not automatically revoke a gift deed unless explicitly stated in the deed.

c. Guidelines

1. A registered gift deed with clear transfer of title and possession is presumed valid unless proven otherwise.
2. Revocation clauses must be explicit in the deed to hold legal validity.
3. Limitation for recovery of possession based on title extends to 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle of irrevocability in gift deeds under Indian property law. This case underscores the importance of explicit terms in gift deeds and provides clarity on limitation periods for property recovery suits. It also highlights the necessity for compliance with statutory provisions to challenge or revoke such deeds.

REFERENCES

1. C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa and Ors., [1962] 1 SCR 67, AIR 1961 SC 808.
2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 126.
3. Limitation Act, 1963, Articles 58, 65.