Skip to main content

Gift under property law

 GIFT UNDER PROPERTY LAW


A Gift is generally regarded as a transfer of ownership of a property where the sender

willingly brings into effect such transfer without any compensation or consideration in

monetary value. It may be in the form of moveable or immoveable property and the parties

may be two living persons or the transfer may take place only after the death of the

transferor. If the essential elements of the gift are not implemented properly it may become

revoked or void by law.

Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act defines a gift as the transfer of an existing

moveable or immovable property. Such transfers must be made voluntarily and without

consideration. The transferor is known as the donor and the transferee is called the donee.

The gift must be accepted by the donee. This Section defines a gift as a gratuitous transfer

of ownership in some property that is already existing. The definition includes the transfer

of both immovable and moveable property.

There are the following five essentials of a valid gift:

1. Transfer of ownership

2. Existing property

3. Transfer without consideration

4. Voluntary transfer with free consent

5. Acceptance of the gift


Transfer without consideration

A gift must be gratuitous, i.e., the ownership in the property must be transferred without

any consideration. Even a negligible property or a very small sum of money given by the

transferee in consideration for the transfer of a very big property would make the

transaction either a sale or an exchange. Consideration, for the purpose of this section, shall

have the same meaning as given in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act. The

consideration is pecuniary in nature, i.e., in monetary terms. Mutual love and affection is

not pecuniary consideration and thus, property transferred in consideration of love and

affection is a transfer without consideration and hence a gift. A transfer of property made in

consideration for the ‘services’ rendered by the donee is a gift. But, a property transferred in

consideration of donee undertaking the liability of the donor is not gratuitous, therefore, it is

not a gift because liabilities evolve pecuniary obligations.


Section 122 provides that the acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and

while he is still capable of giving. The acceptance that comes after the death or

incompetence of the donor is no acceptance. If the gift is accepted during the life of the

donor but the donor dies before the registration and other formalities, the gift is deemed to

have been accepted and the gift is valid.

In the case of immovable property, registration of the transfer is necessary irrespective of

the value of the property. Registration of a document including gift-deed implies that the

transaction is in writing, signed by the executant (donor), attested by two competent persons

and duly stamped before the registration formalities are officially completed. In the case

of Gomtibai v. Mattulal, it was held by the Supreme Court that in the absence of written

instrument executed by the donor, attestation by two witnesses, registration of the

instrument and acceptance thereof by the donee, the gift of immovable property is

incomplete.

The doctrine of part performance is not applicable to gifts, therefore all the conditions must

be complied with. A donee who takes possession of the land under unregistered gift-deed

cannot defend his possession on being evicted. The following must be kept in mind

regarding the requirement of registration:

 Registration of the gift of immovable property is must, however, the gift is not

suspended till registration. A gift may be registered and made enforceable by law

even after the death of the donor, provided that the essential elements of the gift

are all present.

 In case the essential elements of a valid gift are not present, the registration shall

not validate the gift.


In the case of movable properties, it may be completed by the delivery of possession.

Registration in such cases is optional. The gift of a movable property effected by delivery of

possession is valid, irrespective of the valuation of the property. The mode of delivering the

property depends upon the nature of the property. The only things necessary are the transfer

of the title and possession in favour of the donee. Anything which the parties agree to

consider as delivery may be done to deliver the goods or which has the effect of putting the

property in the possession of the transferee may be considered as a delivery.

To constitute a transfer as a gift it must follow the provisions of the Transfer of Property

Act. This Act extensively defines the gift itself and the circumstances of the transfer of such

a gift. The gift, being a transfer of the ownership rights, must be in possession and

ownership of the transferee and must be existing at the time of making the transfer.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more