The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favour of NP Ponnamma in a prolonged family property dispute against her brother, NP Saseendran, affirming her legal ownership of the contested land. The judgement, delivered by a bench of justice JB Pardiwala and justice R Mahadevan, upheld the Kerala High Court (HC) 's decision, overturning the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts.
In an order on Monday, the bench says, "Once the document is declared as 'gift', defendant no1 (NP Narayana Pillai, the father of the siblings) had no right to cancel the same unilaterally and the sub-registrar had no right to register the cancellation deed. Once the document is categorised as a gift, in the absence of any clause or reservation to cancel, the executant has no right to cancel the same. The reasons for cancellation or revocation of gift have to be proved in a court of law. Therefore, according to us, the unilateral cancellation of the document is void and as a natural corollary, the sale deed dated 19 October 1993, executed by the father also, is invalid."
"As already held by us, delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method. The receipt of the original document by Ms Ponnamma and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The creation of life interest with rights to enjoy the income from the property is a plausible and justifiable reason for Ms Ponnamma not to reside in the premises," the bench added.
The dispute revolved around the legal nature of a property transfer made by the siblings' father, NP Narayana Pillai, in 1985. Ms Ponnamma claimed ownership of the property based on a settlement deed executed by her father, which, she argued, was a gift. However, Mr Saseendran contended that the document was actually a Will and not a gift, as their father had retained possession and later revoked the deed in 1993, subsequently selling the property to him.
The trial court and first appellate court sided with Mr Saseendran, ruling that the 1985 document was a will and not a gift. However, the Kerala HC reversed these decisions, recognising the deed as a valid gift and invalidating the subsequent cancellation and sale of the property.
The apex court was tasked with determining the nature of the 1985 document – whether it was a gift, a settlement, or a will and the legal validity of the 1993 cancellation and sale deed – whether the father had the authority to revoke the transfer and sell the property to Mr Saseendran.
The SC examined whether the deed constituted a gift or a Will based on the principle of 'in praesenti' transfer – meaning whether ownership was transferred immediately or only upon the father's death.
The document explicitly conveyed ownership to Ms Ponnamma while allowing Narayana Pillai, the father, to retain a limited life interest, including the right to take income from the property and mortgage it up to Rs2,000.
The apex court ruled that the reservation of life interest did not invalidate the transfer. The key test for determining whether a document is a will or a gift is whether ownership is transferred immediately. "Since the deed granted immediate rights to Ms Ponnamma and was registered as a gift deed, it was legally binding," the SC says.
The Supreme Court ruled that since the 1985 deed was a gift, it could not be unilaterally revoked. It says section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, prohibits the unilateral revocation of a validly executed gift unless conditions for revocation were explicitly mentioned in the deed.
Mr Pillai's act of cancelling the deed in 1993 and selling the property to Mr Saseendran is invalid and unenforceable, the SC says.
The bench observed that the sale deed executed in favour of Mr Saseendran was null and void, as the property had already been transferred to Ms Ponnamma.
This ruling reinforces the protection of gift deeds and clarifies that a validly executed and accepted gift deed cannot be revoked unilaterally, retention of life interest does not transform a gift deed into a Will and property transfers must be examined based on substance rather than title.
The Supreme Court's decision upholds Ms Ponnamma's property rights and sets an important precedent for future disputes concerning gift deeds and Wills in India.
(Civil Appeal No4312 of 2025 Date: 24 March 2025)
