LEGAL METHODS

Case studies on exchange & gifts

1/17/2012 Roll no: 11BSP0800 Ravneet Kang

CASE 1
Williams v Bailey (1866)

Page | 1

A son forged his father's signature on promissory notes and gave them to their bankers. At a meeting of all the parties at the bank, one of the bankers said to the father: "If the bills are yours we are all right; if they are not, we have only one course to pursue; we cannot be parties to compounding a felony." The bank's solicitor said it was a serious matter and the father's own solicitor added, "a case of transportation for life." After further discussion as to the son's financial liability the bank's solicitor said that they could only look to the father. The father then agreed to make an equitable mortgage to the bank in consideration of the return of the promissory notes. The father succeeded in an action for cancellation of the agreement. It was held by Lord Westbury that the security given for the debt of the son by the father under such circumstances, was not the security of a man who acted with that freedom and power of deliberation that must be considered as necessary to validate a contract to give security for the debt of another.

CASE2
Than singh vs nandu kripa jat In this case saraswati and nandu exchanged pieces of land with each other; saraswati sold the land so acquired on the same day for rs 2100 to nandus brother gowardhan. The appellant contended the transaction to be sale and it was given colour of exchange with a view to deceit the appellant right of pre-emption. The matter was referred to Punjab Haryana court in view of conflict between gul mohammeds case and Narayan singh case on the point whether pre-emption puts the restriction on the right of ownership and in view of exchanged social attitude. The court held that if two possible interpretation of a deed are possible one that discourages pre-emption should be held the court the deed to be exchanged Citaions: AIR 1978 punj.94

CASE 3
Panchanan vs narain There were two persons A and B A was indian B was Pakistani A purchased Bs entire Page | 2 estate for rs 100 and transferred his all properties to B. No document was written but it was understood that proper conveyance would be effected as and when the time permitted. It was further agreed that neither will give or take money or moneys worth in return. Each was satisfied and possession was taken over by each, the court held that these were two independent sales and not exchange Citations: AIR 1961 calcutta.193

CASE 4
Baby Ammal vs Rajan Asari on 2 December, 1996 The appellant is admittedly the owner of the property bearing Survey No. 1960/6 in Chettivilakam Village of Trivandrum District. The appellant had filed a suit for possession and declaration that the respondent is a licensee. The trial Court decreed the suit on November 3, 1981 and the appeal was dismissed on July 22, 1993. In the second appeal, the High Court has reversed the finding holding that the appellant had executed the gift deed on October 11, 1966 under Ex. A-1 and, therefore, the respondent had become the donee and remained in possession as owner of the property. Accordingly, the suit cannot be decreed. The recitals in the deed do indicate thus: All the right to enjoy the property and the right to reside in the building will remain with me during my life time and Rajan Asari will derive the said rights with full freedom after my life time. A reading of the above would indicate that the appellant had retained the title to the enjoyment of the property during her life time as full owner with all rights. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act defines gift executed in the manner indicated thereunder divesting the title to and possession of the donor in the property and vesting the same in the donee under Section 123. There must be proof of delivery and acception of possession of the gifted property. In this case, both the title and possession in respect of the property remained with the plaintiff. There is no acceptance of possession by the respondent in the light of above recital. As a consequence, the appellant remained to be the owner during her life time.

CASE 5
Mool Raj vs Jamna Devi And Ors
Page | 3

Smt. Jamna Devi respondent executed a gift deed in favour of the defendants of the property owned by her. The gift deed was pleaded to be conditional one and the condition was that the defendants would render services to her. As the defendants did not comply with the condition of the gift deed, therefore, Smt. Jamna Devi filed a suit for possession of the gifted land as, according to her, by non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the gift deed the same should be revoked. She also pleaded that the parties, being Rajput by caste and agriculturists by occupation, were governed by custom, which amongst them was that a conditional gift in lieu of services was liable to be revoked, if the condition was not fulfilled. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the gift was irrevocable, being unconditional one. On merit, they pleaded that they have been rendering the services to the plaintiff. The suit was also resisted on the ground of locus standi, limitation, res judi-cata and maintainability

As held above, the gift under reference was not a conditional one and could not be revoked. But on the other hand the donor could ask for maintenance from the defendants. To the donor to get maintenance through the Court would amount to perpetuate her agony in case the donees were not rendering any service and were not maintaining donor. The donees in the present case are none else but donor's husband's brother's sons. It is expected of them to look after the donor who happens to be their uncle's wife. Under the circumstances, it would be essential, in the interests of justice, to direct the donees to maintain and look after the donor properly throughout her life. Such an obligation, otherwise also rested upon the defendants and their father and this obligation becomes legal when the defendants have bound down themselves to render services to the donor throughout her life on account of the averments made in the gift deed. The defendants, as such, are directed to render proper services and maintain the plaintiff-donor throughout her life failing which the donor shall be at liberty to take such legal action against the donees as would be permissible to her under the law.In view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal succeeds and the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit land by revocation of the gift deed under reference stands dismissed and the judgment and decree appealed against are set aside. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.