An unconditional registered gift cannot be unilaterally revoked absent a valid Section 126 TPA ground.

The dispute concerned Flat No. 3389, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, originally allotted to defendant no. 1, Padam Chand Jain, who acquired its freehold title through a conveyance deed dated 28 August 2003.

On 5 February 2007, he executed a registered Gift Deed transferring the property to his elder son, Arun Jain, the plaintiff.

On the same date, Arun Jain executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his father to manage the property while Arun was residing abroad.

After disputes arose, the plaintiff revoked the GPA in 2013.

Defendant no. 1 instituted a suit seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed, alleging fraud, but unconditionally withdrew it on 6 June 2015 and did not thereafter institute proceedings for cancellation.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.

During its pendency, he sought judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on the defendants’ admission of the execution and registration of the Gift Deed.

The Trial Court allowed the application and decreed the suit, holding that the Gift Deed was absolute, unconditional and validly executed.

It further held that the alleged oral understanding requiring the plaintiff to maintain his parents, and the absence of delivery of possession or original title documents, could not defeat the registered Gift Deed.

The defendants appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Whether the execution and registration of the Gift Deed constituted clear and unequivocal admissions justifying judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, or whether the defendants’ pleas disclosed bona fide triable issues.

Whether the alleged oral understanding that the gift was a temporary or conditional arrangement could be relied upon to vary or contradict the terms of the registered Gift Deed.

Whether non-delivery of physical possession and original title documents invalidated or postponed the effectiveness of the registered gift of immovable property.

Whether the donor could unilaterally revoke the absolute Gift Deed by notice under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or supersede it through a subsequent Will.

Whether Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 applied retrospectively to invalidate the Gift Deed executed before the Act came into force.

The Court applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC, under which judgment may be entered on clear, unequivocal admissions appearing in pleadings, documents or the surrounding circumstances.

Sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which restrict oral evidence from contradicting, varying or explaining away the plain terms of a written instrument.

Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which a gift requires acceptance and, for immovable property, a registered instrument executed by the donor and attested by two witnesses, but not delivery of possession or original title documents.

Section 126 TPA, under which an unconditional gift cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor absent a legally recognised condition of revocation.

The Court relied on Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595, Promila Gulati v. Anil Gulati, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7406, Mohinder Singh Verma v. J.P.S. Verma, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2565, Sahdev Singh Verma v. J.P.S. Verma, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11654, Asokan v. Lakshmi Kutty, (2007) 13 SCC 210, and Ramti Devi v. Union of India, 1995 (1) SCC 198.

It further held, following Charanjeet Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2730, that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act does not retrospectively disturb rights vested under a transfer made before the Act’s commencement.

The Court found that the defendants had admitted both the execution and registration of the Gift Deed.

The Deed expressly described the plaintiff as the “absolute and exclusive owner” and recorded that possession had been delivered; the GPA executed contemporaneously also recognised the plaintiff’s absolute ownership and merely authorised the father to manage the property while the plaintiff lived abroad.

The alleged oral arrangement requiring the plaintiff to maintain his parents was inconsistent with the written instruments and with the father’s earlier cancellation suit, which had proceeded on an allegation of fraud rather than a conditional or temporary gift.

Under Sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Evidence Act, such a contrary oral understanding could not create a triable issue.

The Court further held that delivery of possession or title documents was not a statutory requirement under Section 123 TPA and therefore their alleged non-delivery did not affect the validity of the registered gift.

The subsequent revocation notice was ineffective because the Gift Deed was unconditional and contained no clause permitting revocation; a subsequent Will also could not defeat rights already vested in the plaintiff.

Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act was unavailable because the Gift Deed pre-dated the statute and the provision could not operate retrospectively.

Since the defences were self-contradictory, legally untenable and did not disclose any genuine triable issue, judgment on admissions was proper.

It held that the registered Gift Deed was valid, absolute and continuing; it had not been validly revoked, was not affected by the alleged non-delivery of possession or documents, and could not be superseded by the subsequent Will.

The pending applications were also disposed of.