Introduction:
The Supreme Court has ruled in a land mark judgment of Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors. (2024 INSC 965) that a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour. It has also been held violative of various fundamental rights including article 14, 21 and 23 as which prohibits forced labour and guarantees Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
Facts of the Case:
In the case of Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors. (2024 INSC 965), Civil Appeal No. 8244 of 2009, which involved a gift deed executed by the Donor, Mr. Rai Bahadur Randhir in 1953 comprising of Land measuring 38 Bighas 8 Biswas, where the land in question was orally gifted by him to the Donees namely Sanwalia, Ratiram and Sheochand on a condition that they would render services to the donor for lifetime.
After almost 45 years of peaceful possession of land by the Donees, a suit was filed by the legal heirs of the donor for the declaration and for possession and resumption of this property. The said Suit filed by the legal heirs of the donors succeeded but later on came to be overturned by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
An appeal was made to Supreme Court by the donor’s legal heirs after the High court’s decision to set aside the order of the trial court regarding the matter where the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s legal heirs had left the village and thus stopped rendering services to the them while they were still residing in the village. As a result, the land which was originally gifted to the donees should return back to the Donor or his legal heirs.
The Defendants disagreeing to the plaintiff’s claim, made an averment stating that the gift was absolute, unconditional granted in exchange for the services rendered, it had no mention of the abovesaid condition requiring the land to revert back to the Donor or his legal heirs on donee’s death or on nonrendering of services.
Issues raised:
- Condition of the gift- whether the condition of rendering services was valid part of the gift?
- Limitation period- The court also considered the issue of limitation, as the plaintiffs had filed the case after 45 years after the gift deed was executed.
- Violation of fundamental rights- Does such a condition violate Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labor?
Judgment of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the condition of perpetual service was inherently oppressive and unconstitutional.
The Court’s judgment was contemptuous in its analysis of the conditions tied to the gift. Justice Dhulia noted, “This so-called rendering of services was to be in perpetuity. What would this be, if not forced labor? When the gift deed was executed, the Constitution of India had already been enforced. Article 14, Article 21, and more particularly Article 23 prohibit such forced labor.”
It was further highlighted by Court that the gift must be read in consideration of the donor’s intent and the broader constitutional framework. It found that the services referenced in the mutation record likely related to past services redendered by the donees or services provided only during the donor’s lifetime. “There was never such a condition of rendering continuous services in the gift deed as the plaintiffs would like us to read,” the supreme court judgment read.
The Court also noted that Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), which allows for onerous gifts was now not in force to the then State of Punjab, as the TPA was not applicable there.
The judgment went on to add:"Although Section 127 of TPA permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees. It has to be remembered that this so-called rendering of “services”, was to be in perpetuity. It has to go on forever. What would this be, if not “begar” or forced labour. We must also remember that when the gift deed was executed the Constitution of India had already been enforced. Article 14 and 21 and more particularly Article 23 prohibits forced labour. Hence, the condition as is being read by the plaintiffs where not only the donees but their successors were to continue giving services to the plaintiffs, that too indefinitely, is nothing short of reading forced labour, as a condition."
Rightly so, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that no intervention was required in the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court setting aside the Decree.
Conclusion:
This Judgment reinforces constitutional protections against exploitative practices in property transactions and highlights the importance of equitable principles in interpreting such disputes. It also serves as a reminder that gift deeds and property transactions must be carefully drafted and executed to ensure that they do not infringe upon fundamental rights.
This article has been written by the Real Estate Team, AAK Legal, Advocates & Solicitors.
Disclaimer – This article is meant for informational purposes only. The contents of this article are not to be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm. The copyright to the article rests solely with the authors and the firm.