Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in the case Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors. (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 980), addressed the validity of an oral gift deed executed in 1953 with a condition requiring perpetual rendering of services without remuneration. The appeal originated after the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned a trial court’s decree that permitted the donors’ successors to reclaim possession of the land when the donees allegedly ceased rendering services. A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale ruled that such conditions amount to “begar” or forced labor, a practice prohibited under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution, and declared it unconstitutional.

Arguments of the Appellants:

The appellants, successors of the original donor, argued that the oral gift deed included a condition obligating the donees and their successors to render services perpetually to the donor’s successors. They contended that the cessation of these services entitled them to reclaim possession of the land gifted in 1953. Highlighting the historical practice of landlords using such conditions to circumvent anti-zamindari reforms, the appellants argued that the donees’ actions violated the terms of the gift deed. They relied on the trial court’s finding that the donees failed to meet their obligations and claimed that the gift deed imposed a binding obligation enforceable even after decades.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, who were the donees and their successors, argued that the condition in the oral gift deed was unreasonable, unjust, and violative of their fundamental rights. They emphasized that the requirement to render unpaid services indefinitely amounted to forced labor, prohibited under Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The respondents further contended that the appellants themselves had left the village decades ago, rendering the fulfillment of such conditions impractical and irrelevant. They also argued that they had enjoyed peaceful possession of the land for over 45 years without interruption, and any attempt to reclaim the property now would be inequitable. The respondents asserted that the condition for continuous services was never explicitly stated in the oral gift deed, suggesting that it pertained only to past services rendered by the donees.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a condition requiring perpetual rendering of unpaid services violates the fundamental rights of the donees and their successors, amounting to “begar” or forced labor prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, writing the judgment, criticized the trial court for failing to question the constitutionality of such a condition. The bench noted that while Section 127 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1872 allows for onerous gifts, any condition imposing forced labor is unconstitutional, as it contravenes the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The Court observed that during the 1950s, similar gift deeds were executed by landlords to bypass land reform laws, often imposing exploitative conditions on agricultural workers and helpers. It concluded that the oral gift deed could not mandate indefinite services without remuneration.

The Court held that the condition in question should be construed as referring only to past services rendered by the donees to the original donor, Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh, who had passed away in the late 1950s. The Court ruled that the gift deed did not impose an obligation of continuous services on the donees or their successors, as such a condition would be inequitable and contrary to constitutional principles. It also emphasized the appellants’ failure to provide specific instances of denial of services in their plaint, further weakening their claim. Finally, the Court upheld the respondents’ long-standing peaceful possession of the property as an indication of the absence of any enforceable condition in the gift deed.