The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Saseendran vs N.P. Ponnamma[1] decided on the matter in relation to the legal nature of a document executed in 1985 by the appellant’s father (‘the Defendant No.1’) in favor of the respondent daughter (‘the Respondent No.1 plaintiff’). The appeal challenges the Kerala High Court judgment which held the document to be a gift deed or settlement, granting the daughter’s ownership rights over a suit property, undoing prior judgments by trial and first appellate courts that dismissed her suit by construing the document as a Will.
Facts of the Case
The father executed a document in 1985 titled “Dhananischayaadharam,” purportedly gifting or settling the suit property in favor of his daughter. The document reserved the father’s life interest, allowing him to possess, enjoy income from, mortgage up to Rs. 2,000, and use the property during his lifetime and that of his wife. Possession and the right to reside were delegated to the daughter only after the life interests ceased. Subsequently, the father executed a cancellation deed and a sale deed in 1993 favoring the appellant son and the daughter filed a suit for declaration of ownership and nullification of these documents. During suit pendency, the father died. The trial court and the first appellate court held the 1985 document as a Will and dismissed the daughter’s suit. The Kerala High Court reversed these findings, treating the document as a gift deed or settlement and declared the daughter’s ownership.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The twin issues were whether the 1985 document was a gift/settlement or a Will, and whether the conditions for vesting ownership were satisfied.
- Appellant’s Arguments: The 1985 document was a Will, not a gift. The test is whether the disposition took effect in praesenti (immediately) or post-mortem. Here, the father retained possession and ownership during life, evidencing a Will, revocable any time before death. No valid acceptance of the gift by daughter occurred during father’s lifetime. The cancellation and sale deed were valid. Mutations and possession by appellant son reinforce this position. Reference was made to Ramaswami Naidu v. Gopalakrishna Naidu, Baby Ammal v. Rajan Asari, and other precedents.
- Respondent’s Arguments: The document was a gift deed or settlement under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, irrevocable without cause, and validly accepted by registration and conduct. Delivery of possession is not essential for a valid gift. Reservation of life interest is permissible in a settlement. The cancellation deed is void and the son has no title. Mutation of revenue records does not confer ownership. Precedents including Reninkuntala Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma, K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam were cited. The High Court correctly set aside concurrent judgments.
Key Legal Principles Discussed
- Gift (Sec 122-128, Transfer of Property Act): Requires voluntary transfer without consideration, accepted during donor’s lifetime. Registration mandatory for immovable property, but delivery of possession is not sine qua non. Unilateral revocation prohibited.
- Settlement (Specific Relief Act, Stamp Acts): Disposition with consideration (usually family affection), allowing life interest reservation. Registration is mandatory. Conditions restricting enjoyment can be void if repugnant. Essentially, there is an element of gift in every settlement.
- Will (Indian Succession Act): Testamentary disposition effective after death, freely revocable during donor’s life if of sound mind. Execution requires attestation by witnesses. Revocation may occur by marriage, subsequent will, or destruction. The court examines intention from the entire document.
- Distinguishing Gift/Settlement from Will: Key test is whether interest passes immediately (gift/settlement) or only after death (will). Form and name of document are immaterial; substance and intent prevail. Composite documents may have both elements.
- Acceptance of Gift: Can be express or implied, by conduct, possession of document, registration. Possession of property is presumptive but not essential for completion.
- Effect of Life Interest Reservation: Does not affect absolute vesting of ownership in donee; life interest holder has usufructuary rights only.
- Conflicting Clauses in Document: Earlier clauses granting absolute rights override later contrary clauses which can be voided if repugnant.
- Mutation of Revenue Records: Does not create or extinguish title; relevant only for revenue purposes.
Below are the various precedents discussed to determine the validity of the legal document:
- Reninkuntala Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma[2]
- A gift of immovable property must be made by registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by two witnesses, and accepted by the donee during the donor’s lifetime.
- Delivery of possession of the immovable property is not a sine qua non for a valid gift.
- Acceptance can be inferred from conduct including registration and possession of the gift deed itself.
- Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act emphasize immovable property requires registration but not necessarily possession transfer.
- K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam[3]
- Ownership in property can be transferred by gift even when the donor retains possession and right of enjoyment during lifetime (life interest).
- Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act permits transfer of property with reserved usufructuary rights.
- The donee need not be placed in possession immediately for gift validity.
- Valid acceptance of the gift prevents unilateral revocation by donor under Section 126.
- Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker[4]
- A conditional gift where acceptance is not proved during the donor’s lifetime is incomplete and may be revoked.
- Delivery of possession or acceptance by donee is essential for completing a gift.
- Possession retained by donor and gift taking effect after donor’s death signify a will, not a gift.
- Daulat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Acceptance of gift must be made during donor’s lifetime but no specific mode is mandated.
- Acceptance can be inferred from circumstances, including possession of property or gift deed by donee.
- Acceptance is an act of receiving with intention to keep.
- Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.[5]
- Irregularity in registration procedure may not amount to fraud.
- Registration irregularities do not invalidate a document unless proved in civil court.
- Navneet Lal Rangi v. Gokul[6]
- Construction of wills requires ascertaining testator’s true intention from entire document and circumstance, not merely from isolated clauses.
- Conflicting clauses should be reconciled if possible; a repugnant clause may be disregarded in favor of earlier clear dispositions.
- Testamentary intentions should be given maximum effect.
- P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary[7]
- The test between will and settlement depends on whether interest is transferred in praesenti (settlement/gift) or takes effect on death (will).
- Nomenclature is irrelevant; substance and intention determine legal character.
- A composite document can contain both testamentary and settlement provisions.
- Ramkishorelal v. Kamal Narayan[8]
- In case of conflicting clauses, earlier dispositions of absolute title prevail over subsequent contradictory clauses.
- Later clauses that seek to restrict or destroy an absolute estate are void.
- Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim[9]
- Similar to Ramkishorelal, the earlier absolute bequest in a will prevails over contradictory later clauses.
- Courts must seek to give effect to the intention behind each clause harmoniously wherever possible.
- Sawarni v. Inder Kaur & P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar[10]
- Mutation of revenue records does not confer or extinguish title and is only relevant for land revenue purposes, not ownership.
- Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta[11]
- A will must be read as a whole to give effect to testator’s intention.
- Illegal clauses in a will can be severed, preserving the legal parts.
- Absolute bequests cannot be contradicted or invalidated by subsequent inconsistent clauses.
Findings and Judgment
- The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision that the 1985 document was a gift by settlement, not a Will. The father parted with absolute ownership but reserved life interest for himself and wife with permissible conditions, satisfying the requirements for a settlement.
- The daughter’s acceptance was valid by registration and conduct. The cancellation deed was unilateral and void under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.
- The mutation and possession by appellant son are not determinative of title in the face of a valid gift deed.
- The document was interpreted harmoniously, giving effect to the intention as a whole.
- The trial and first appellate courts erred in construing the document as a Will and dismissing the suit.
- The appeal by the son was dismissed, confirming the High Court decree in favor of the daughter, declaring her rightful owner of the property.
[1] N.P. Saseendran v N.P. Ponnamma & Ors., Supreme Court [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4312 OF 2025]
[2] Reninkuntala Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma (2014 9 SCC 445)
[3] K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam (2004 1 SCC 581)
[4] Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker (1997 2 SCC 255)
[5] Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. (2021 3 SCC 459)
[6] Navneet Lal Rangi v. Gokul (1976 1 SCC 630)
[7] P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary (2010 4 SCC 161)
[8] Ramkishorelal v. Kamal Narayan (1963 Supp 2 SCR 417)
[9] Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim (AIR 1959 SC 24)
[10] Sawarni v. Inder Kaur; P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar (2004 1 SCC 581)
[11] Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta (2016 10 SCC 805)