Today, On 12th December, The Supreme Court declared conditions in gift deeds requiring the donee to provide lifelong service to the donor as unconstitutional and a form of forced labour. The Court emphasized that such stipulations violate fundamental rights, likening them to “begar” (bonded labour), which is explicitly prohibited under the Constitution. This landmark ruling reinforces the principle of individual liberty and the illegality of coercive agreements.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court declared that a provision in a gift deed mandating the donees to provide services to the donor indefinitely and without remuneration is illegal and unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale asserted that such a requirement constitutes forced labor, thereby violating the Constitution of India.
The court made this determination while reviewing a gift deed stipulating that not only the donees but also their successors must provide services to the donors perpetually. The justices characterized this condition as tantamount to forced labor, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and personal liberty), and 23 (prohibition of human trafficking and forced labor) of the Constitution.
Read Also: “Original Parent Document Not Necessary To Transfer Property”: Madras High Court
The court emphasized,
“Although Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act permits an onerous gift, a gift conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a ‘begar’ or forced labor, even slavery. Therefore, it is not only wrong or illegal but also unconstitutional, being violative of the fundamental rights of the donees. This so-called rendering of ‘services’ was to continue indefinitely. What would this be, if not ‘begar’ or forced labor?”
This ruling arose from a dispute over a 38 bigha and 8 biswas land gift made in 1953 by Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh (the donor) to Sanwalia, Ratiram, and Sheochand (the donees), sons of Chhailu. While the gift deed executed and possession transferred, the heirs of the original donor filed a suit in 1998, claiming the land should revert to them as the donees had ceased providing the promised lifelong services.
The defendants contended that while the gift was given in exchange for services, the deed did not stipulate that the land should revert upon the donees’ death. They also argued that the suit was barred by limitation, given the gift was made in 1953.
A trial court ruled that the gift was valid only during the original donees’ lifetimes and contingent upon their rendering services. This ruling was upheld by the first appellate court.
However, the High Court later allowed the defendants’ second appeal, dismissing the suit primarily on limitation grounds and noting the absence of a clear condition in the gift deed regarding the requirement for perpetual services.
The plaintiffs challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. The defendants maintained that the gift was absolute and asserted that the plaintiffs had not rendered services since leaving the village after the donor’s death.
The Supreme Court noted that the peaceful possession of the property by the donees and their successors for over 45 years indicated there was never a condition of perpetual service in the gift deed.
The court remarked,
“In other words, the gift had no condition of continuation of these services till perpetuity as the plaintiffs would like us to read,”
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, which allows for onerous gifts, is not applicable in present-day Haryana, as the Act does not apply there.
Read Also: ‘Illegal’ Bangladeshi Immigrants Living in Jharkhand: Central Govt Tells HC
The court concluded that the condition of rendering services in perpetuity could not be validly incorporated into the gift deed, considering principles of equity, justice, and good conscience.
The court stated,
“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,”
Ultimately dismissing the plaintiffs’ plea and upholding the High Court’s ruling.
Advocates Irshad Ahmad and Ram Swarup Sharma represented the plaintiffs, while advocates Ramshwar Prasad Goyal and Shubham Bhalla represented the respondents.