In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court struck down conditions in gift deeds requiring perpetual, unpaid service to donors, deeming such stipulations illegal and a violation of constitutional rights. The judgment addresses a contentious dispute over land gifted in 1953, with the Court unequivocally denouncing the imposed condition as tantamount to forced labor.
The case revolved around a gift of 38 bighas and 8 biswas of land in Punjab, granted by Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh to three brothers, with an alleged oral agreement requiring lifelong services by the donees and their heirs. Decades later, the heirs of the original donor sought to reclaim the land, arguing that the descendants of the donees had failed to uphold this service obligation.
Lower courts initially sided with the plaintiffs, asserting that the gift was conditional on the services provided. However, the High Court overturned these rulings, emphasizing the lack of explicit conditions in the gift deed and pointing out that the plaintiffs failed to detail the nature of the services or when they ceased.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing that such conditions violate fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Indian Constitution, which collectively safeguard equality, personal liberty, and the prohibition of forced labor.
“Demanding perpetual, unpaid service in exchange for property ownership is nothing short of forced labor, akin to slavery. Such conditions cannot withstand the test of equity, justice, or good conscience,” the Bench remarked.
The Court highlighted that Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, which permits onerous gifts, does not apply to present-day Haryana, where the land is located. Furthermore, it ruled that even if applicable, the condition of perpetual service would remain unenforceable as it contradicts fundamental constitutional protections.
Significantly, the Court noted the absence of disputes over the donees’ peaceful possession of the land for over 45 years, underscoring the improbability of any ongoing service obligations. It concluded that the alleged condition pertained solely to past services rendered during the donor’s lifetime.
The ruling affirms that property transfers cannot be contingent upon requirements that undermine human dignity or freedom, sending a strong message against exploitative practices disguised as legal agreements.
