Condition in gift deed requiring donee to perpetually serve donor is forced labour: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a condition in a gift deed requiring the donee (s) to perpetually render services to the doner without any remuneration is illegal and unconstitutional [Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.]. .A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale observed that such a condition would amount to forced labour and is, therefore, violative of the Constitution of India. The Court made the observation while examining the terms of a gift deed that required not only the donees but also their successors to provide services to the donors indefinitely.The Court termed such a condition as being nothing short of forced labour and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and personal liberty) and 23 (prohibition of human trafficking and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. "Although Section 127 of (Transfer of Property Act) permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a 'begar' or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees. It has to be remembered that this so-called rendering of 'services', was to be in perpetuity. It has to go on forever. What would this be, if not 'begar' or forced labour," the Court remarked. .A gift conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a 'begar' or forced labour, even slavery.Supreme Court.The top court was dealing with a suit that concerned a land measuring 38 bighas and 8 biswas which was gifted by one Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh (donor) to Sanwalia, Ratiram and Sheochand (donees), the sons of one Chhailu, in 1953 in Punjab. The oral gift deed was executed, a mutation was carried out in favour of the donees and the possession of the gift land was also given to the donees. In 1998, the heirs of the original donor (plaintiffs) filed a suit claiming that the gifted land, given in exchange for lifelong services by the donees and their heirs, should revert to them as the defendants (heirs of the donees) had stopped providing these services and since the original donees had passed away..The heirs of the original donees (defendants) opposed the suit, arguing that while the gift was granted in exchange for services rendered, it included no condition requiring the land to revert to the donor (or his heirs) upon the donees' death. It also asserted that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the gift deed was from 1953.A trial court held that the gift was valid only during the lifetime of the original donees and was conditional upon services being rendered by the them. It observed that since the services had ceased after the death of the donees, the land was liable to revert to the heirs of the donor (plaintiffs). Thus, it ruled that the land was liable to be given back to the plaintiffs. The first appellate court also agreed with these findings and dismissed the defendants' first appeal. .However, the High Court later allowed the defendants’ second appeal and dismissed the suit, primarily on the grounds of limitation. It also noted that there was no mention in the gift deed about the condition that the donees were required to serve the heirs of the donor, and that the plaintiffs had failed to specify what these “services” were or when they were stopped.The plaintiffs challenged the High Court's decision by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. .The donees (defendants) opposed the appeal, asserting that the gift was absolute and not conditional. They argued that the plaintiffs had left the village long ago, immediately after the death of the donor, and therefore, there was no question of rendering any further services.Among other arguments, they also highlighted that they had maintained their continuous possession over the gift land..The Court observed that the only plausible explanation for the donees and their successors having peacefully possessed the property for over 45 years is that there was never a condition of rendering perpetual services in the gift deed."In other words, the gift had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity as the plaintiffs would like us to read," it noted..Further, the Court noted that Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), which allows for onerous gifts (a gift that comes with a onerous or burdensome condition) was now not in force in present-day Haryana (previously part of Punjab), as the TPA was not applicable there.It also held that the condition of rendering services in perpetuity could not be read into the gift deed as a valid requirement, based on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience.It added that the condition of rendering “services” has to be read in the context in which the deed was executed."Services shall be understood only as ‘past services’ rendered, or at most, the services which had to be rendered by the original donees to the original donor during his lifetime", the Court held. .Thus, it dismissed the plaintiffs plea and upheld the High Court's decision. .Advocates Irshad Ahmad and Ram Swarup Sharma appeared for the plaintiffs, heirs of the donors. Advocates Ramshwar Prasad Goyal and Shubham Bhalla appeared for the respondents, heirs of the donees and others. .[Read Order]