Case: Shakuntla Etc Vs. State of Haryana

The appellants in these three appeals are aggrieved against a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 14, 1969, by which the judgment of a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissing their writ petitions was upheld on the ground that the gifts to them did not fall within t he purview of the saving clause of section 32FF ofthe PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the ActIt is not in dispute that a gift was made in each of these cases before July 30, 1958, and in one ca se after August 21, 1956 but before July 30, 1958. The donees were not persons who were not related to the donors, and were persons to whom gifts were made of agricultural lands for love and affection. The revenue authorities took the view that the gifts were not transfers of lands of the nature protected by section 32FF of the Act as there was no valuable consideration, and mere love and affection was not "consideration" within the meaning of that section. As the High Court h as upheld that view, the appellants feel aggrieved and have come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
It is therefore one of the essential requirements of a gift that it should be made by the donor "without consideration". The word "consideration" has not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act, but we have no doubt that it has been used in that Act in the same sense as in the Indian Contract Act and excludes natural love and affectionIf it were to be otherwise, a transfer would really amount to a sale within the meaning of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, or to an exchange within the meaning of section 118 for each party will have the rights and be subject to the liabilities of a seller as to what he gives and have the rights and be subject to the liabilities of a buyer as to that which he takes. It is not necessary for us to examine the other modes of transfer, for they have no bearing on the nature of the controversy before us. It would thus appear that it is of the essence of a gift as defined in the Transfer of Property Act that it should be without "consideration" of the nature defined in section 2 (d) of the Contract Act,Now what section 32FF of the Act saves is transfer or disposition of land for "consideration" up to the limit specified in it, and as a gift is always without consideration, the gifts which are the subject matter of controversy before us will not fall within the purview of that section, and have rightly been excluded while calculating the surplus area in the three cases before us. Any other view of the section would defeat the purpose of Chapter IV-A of the Act which provides for ceiling on land and acquisition and disposal of surplus areaThe argument of learned counsel becomes untenable on a reference to 17 C.J.S. Contract 91-92 on which he has placed considerable reliance. We have also gone through JamesNewton v. RobertHargreaves, (1) but it cannot avail the appellants for there the conveyance was by the father to his two sons in consideration of natural love and affection and the law acknowledged that to be a "good" consideration, which is not so in the cases before us.