1

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

SUBJECT: PROPERTY LAW-I

TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS: K.Balakrishnan vs K.Kamalam. & Ors

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. Sanjay Yadav KHUSHI SHARMA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 2018BALLB90
 2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project titled – Case Analysis: K.Balakrishnan vs K.Kamalam. & Ors
has been prepared and submitted by Khushi Sharma, who is pursuing her B.A.L.L.B (Hons) at
National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment Property Law-I . It is also certified that
this is project work has not been submitted to any other University, nor published in any
journal.
Date: 4h December 2018 Signature of student:

Signature of Project Supervisor:

 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would
like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Sanjay Yadav for guiding me
throughout the development of this project into a coherent whole by providing helpful
insights and sharing his brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of Gyan
Mandir, National Law Institute University for their unreserved assistance throughout the
making this project. I am deeply indebted to my parent, seniors and friends for all the moral
support and encouragement.

Khushi sharma
 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE .......................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................... 5

MATERIAL FACTS.................................................................................................................. 6

ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 7

APPELLANTS....................................................................................................................... 7

RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................... 8

RATIO ....................................................................................................................................... 8

JUDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8

CRITICAL COMMENT WITH SUGGESTIONS .................................................................... 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 9
 5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

RELEVANT SECTIONS:

1. Section 127 of Transfer Of Property Act

"127. Onerous gifts - Where a gift is in the form of a single transfer to the same person
of several things of which one is, and the others are not burdened by an obligation, the
donee can take nothing by the gift unless he accents it fully.
Where a gift is in the form of two or more separate, and independent transfers the same
person of several things, the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and refuse the
others, although the former may be beneficial and the latter onerous.
Onerous gift to disqualified person. - A donee not competent to contract and accepting
property burdened by any obligation is not bound by his acceptance. But if, after
becoming competent to contract and being aware of the obligation, he retains the
property given, he becomes so bound."
“The last part of Section 127, underlined above, clearly indicates that a minor donee, who
can be said to be in law incompetent to contract under Section 11 of the Contract Act is,
however, competent to accept onerous gift. Acceptance of an onerous gift, however, cannot
bind the minor. If he accepts the gift during his minority of a property burdened with
obligation and on attaining majority does not repudiate but retains it, he would be bound by
the obligation attached to it.”
 6

MATERIAL FACTS

1. On 24.9.1945, mother Devyani (donor) executed a registered gift-deed of 1/8th share

of the property inherited by her from her maternal grandfather in favour of her minor
son aged 16 years being the present appellant (donee) and her daughter (respondent No.
1 herein) who was aged four years. Under the terms of the gift-deed ownership of the
property, half and half, to each of the two donees was transferred but the donor retained
during her life time the management of the school and the income from the property.
2. On 28.3.1970, the donor executed a cancellation deed whereby she cancelled the gift-
deed dated 24.9.1945 and thereafter executed a Will on 30.3.1970 bequeathing the same
property comprising her 1/8th share in favour of her daughter, first respondent. The
donor died on 6.11.1982.
3. The appellant filed the present suit OS No. 145 of 1986 in the Court of Quilon claiming
declaration of his title to the suit property on the basis of the gift-deed and a further
declaration was sought that the cancellation deed dated 28.3.1970 and the Will dated
30.3.1970 are ineffective and void in law.
 7

ISSUES

“Whether a person who is a minor on the date of execution of the gift- can be held to have
legally accepted the property in suit gifted to him and the said gift-deed was irrevocable”

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

APPELLANTS
1. It is submitted that Clause (d) of Section 6 is not attracted on the terms of the gift-deed
herein because it was not a property, the enjoyment of which was restricted to the owner
personally. She was absolute owner of the property gifted and it was not restricted in
its enjoyment to herself. She had inherited it from her maternal father as a full owner.
2. Furthermore, the Transfer of Property Act read with the Indian Contract Act does not
prohibit the transfer of property to the minor under Section 127 of the Transfer of
Property Act. If the minor on attaining the majority does not repudiate the transfer and
rather retains it, he is bound by such a transfer. In the present matter the gift deed was
revoked by the mother much after its execution. By that time, the son had become major
and he never repudiated the gift and therefore he is said to have accepted the gift deed
and the mother cannot revoke the same.
3. It is submitted that there is a presumption in favour of the validity of a gift of a parent
or a grandparent to a child, if it is complete. When a gift is made to a child, generally
there is presumption of its acceptance because express acceptance in his case is not
possible and only an implied acceptance can be expected. Therefore, in the instant case,
mother who is the natural guardian gifted the property to her minor son knowledge of
gift deed to both the parents as natural guardians and the donee is sufficient to indicate
acceptance of gift by the minor himself or on his behalf by the parents.
4. It is submitted the donor did not revoke the gift deed by specifically mentioning in the
recital of the cancellation deed that the gift was not complete due to non- acceptance, it
can therefore be concluded that the gift deed was complete and was accepted by the
donee.
 8

RESPONDENTS
1. It is submitted that the terms of the gift-deed do not indicate that any property was
transferred thereunder. when the donor reserved to herself the right to sign the papers
with respect to management of the school and right to take usufruct from the property
where the school is situated, there arose no question of passing over ownership of the
property to the donees which the donees could accept.
2. The gift-deed is ineffectual under Section 6 of the Act because the donor had reserved
to herself the possession arid enjoyment of the property gifted.

RATIO
A minor suffers disability from entering into a contract but he is thereby not incapable of
receiving property. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not prohibit transfer of property
to a minor. Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly recognises the competence of a
minor to accept the gift. In the case of a minor donee receiving a gift from her parents, no
express acceptance can be expected and is possible, and acceptance can be implied even by
mere silence or such conduct of the minor donee and his other natural guardian as not to
indicate any disapproval or repudiation of it.

JUDGEMENT
Section 127 clearly indicates competence of a minor donee to accept the gift1, if he is capable
of so doing. Such acceptance of a gift can be made by himself or on his behalf by someone
else.2 In the instant case, the gift having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete is
irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 126 prohibits revocation
of a validly executed gift except in circumstances mentioned therein. The gift was executed in
1945. It remained in force for about 25 years during which time the donee had attained majority
and had not repudiated the same. It was, therefore, not competent for the donor to have
cancelled the gift and executed a Will in relation to the property. Consequently, Appeal filed
by the donee succeeds and is hereby allowed.

1
Firm of Ganeshdas Bhiwaraj vs.Suryabhan 1917 XIII Nagpur Law Reports 18; Munni Kunwar vs. Madan Gopal
1916 (XXXVIII) ILR Allahabad 62 at 69; Firm of Geneshdas Bhiwaraj vs. Suryabhan 1917 Vol. 39 Indian Cases
46.
2
Sundar Bai vs. Anandi Lal [AIR 1983 Allahabad 23]; Ponnuchami Servai vs. Balasubramanian [AIR 1982
Madras 281],
 9

CRITICAL COMMENT WITH SUGGESTIONS

In my opinion the court was correct in allowing the appeal. The law does not prohibit the
transfer of property to the minors. Such acceptance may not be through an overt action and can
be through a silent acceptance as well especially in the case where the donor is also the guardian
of the minor. Therefore in the present matter, the mother, being the donor, cannot revoke the
gift deed as such revocation was after the son attained majority and he did not repudiate the
gift deed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• google.co.in
• manupatra.com
• www.indiankanoon.com