A gift deed expressly conditioned on maintenance is revocable upon the donee’s failure to maintain the donor.

The plaintiff, Shantu, executed a registered gift deed dated 21 March 1997 in favour of the defendant, Kanshi Ram, concerning his half share in the suit land. The deed stipulated that the defendant would maintain the plaintiff and his wife and that the gift could be revoked upon failure to do so.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant and his family failed to maintain them, maltreated them, and compelled them to leave the house; he therefore sought declaration that the gift stood revoked, along with possession and permanent injunction.

The defendant admitted execution of the gift deed but contended that he had maintained the plaintiff for several years, that the plaintiff voluntarily left after his marriage, and that money orders sent towards maintenance were refused.

The Trial Court held that the gift was conditional and that the defendant had failed to maintain the plaintiff and his wife, and decreed the suit.

The District Judge reversed that decree, holding that future services were merely the motive for the gift and that no breach had been established.

The plaintiff filed the present regular second appeal, which was admitted on three substantial questions of law.

Whether the Lower Appellate Court misconstrued the Transfer of Property Act by ignoring the express stipulation that the gift would be revoked upon the defendant’s failure to render maintenance and services?

Whether the Lower Appellate Court’s finding that there was no breach of the gift conditions, and that the plaintiff had voluntarily left the defendant’s house and refused maintenance, was erroneous or perverse?

Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the gift deed was irrevocable by misapplying the legal principles governing conditional gifts?

Under Sections 31 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an interest may be created subject to a condition that it will cease upon the happening or non-happening of a specified uncertain event, and a gift may be revoked where the parties have agreed to such a condition, provided it is not dependent solely on the donor’s will.

Although Section 122 defines a gift as a voluntary transfer without consideration, maintenance or future services may nevertheless constitute a valid condition attached to the gift rather than impermissible consideration.

The Court relied on Mt. Purnia Kurmi v. Manindra Nath Mahanti, AIR 1968 Assam & Nagaland 50, Gehru Ram v. Rohlu, 1998 (1) Shim. L.C. 360, Bhagwan Dass v. Tulu, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3381, and Amar Chand v. Pushpa, RSA No. 91 of 2021, for the proposition that a gift expressly conditioned upon maintaining the donor may be revoked upon breach.

Naresh Kumari v. Chameli, 2024 INSC 965, was distinguished because it prohibited perpetual service obligations but permitted maintenance during the lifetime of the donor and donee.

The High Court found that the gift deed expressly required the defendant to maintain the plaintiff and his wife and permitted revocation upon failure to do so; hence, the gift was conditional and not irrevocable merely because it was a gift without consideration.

The defendant’s denial of the maintenance condition was inconsistent with the contents of the gift deed and undermined his credibility.

His own evidence showed that the plaintiff left the defendant’s house shortly after marriage, despite allegedly having lived there for several years, while the defendant’s witnesses failed to satisfactorily explain that circumstance.

The Court further held that sending money orders did not satisfy the contractual obligation to “maintain” the plaintiff and his wife, which required care and support rather than merely monetary payment.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court had misdirected itself by treating maintenance only as the motive for the gift and by disregarding the express revocation clause.

It held that the gift deed contained a valid condition requiring maintenance and that the defendant’s failure to fulfil that condition entitled the plaintiff to revoke the gift.

The appeal was allowed; the District Judge’s judgment and decree dated 26 April 2005 were set aside, and the Trial Court’s decree dated 12 November 2002 granting declaration, possession, and permanent prohibitory injunction was restored.