Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Case presentation

Sonia Bhatia Vs State of U.P.


1981 SCR(3)239

PRESENTED BY- MR. AMIT PANDEY


ITM UNIVERSITY,RAIPUR
B B A . L L B . 7 TH S E M E S T E R
PRESENTED BEFORE-ASSI.PROF.
MRS. DEBASHREE CHAKRABORTY
Judge name

1. Justice Fazalali
2. Justice Sayed murtaza
Decided on

March 17, 1981


Jurisdiction

1. This case is firstly filled in the district court in and court given the
decision in the favor of the appellant and again the respondent file a
writ petition in the Allahabad high court where court also dismiss the
appeal
Fact of the case

28, 1972 the donor gifted away certain lands in favor of his grand-
daughter, the appellant, daughter of a pre-deceased son. On January
The gift having been made after the prescribed date , the
Prescribed Authority ignored the gift for purposes of section 5 (6) of
the Act.
Issue before the court

1. Whether the transfer of gift is valid or not ?


2. Whether it is necessary for the legislature to gives all the definitions
of the word which is conversant ?
Argument of appellant

1. The transfer of gift is valid because for a valid gift these are the
essential ingredient of a valid gift these are free consent, proper
authority , no consideration .these all ingredient is fulfilled by the
appellant .
2. Legislature doesn't need to give all the definition of the common
word which is used in daily conversant.
Argument of defendant

1. The transfer of gift is void because the section 5(6) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 said that for the
valid gift consideration is necessary and that is adequate
consideration.
2. In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any
transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971,
which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land
under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account;
Decision of the court

1. The transfer of gift is valid.


2. Legislature doesn't need to gives all the definition of common used
words.
3. The appeal is fail and is accordingly dismissed but without any order
as cost
Reasoning

1. This particular case is related to a valid transfer of the gift because


appellant of this case want to execute the gift in the name his grand
daughter but respondent raise a questions regarding the section 5(6)
of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960
Criticism

1. The decision is given by a honorable court is valid because in the


transfer of consideration is not necessary and if a consideration is
given in the transfer of the gift the it is void gift.
2. In the gift deed time period of the execution of the gift is not need to
specify and consideration is not necessary not blood or money.
Any queries ?
Thanks