List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News?  

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Kakkoth Radha and Ors. v. Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthafa and Anr. has stated that no particular mode is prescribed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) as to the requirement needed to prove acceptance. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. 

What was the Background of Kakkoth Radha and Ors. v. Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthafa and Anr. Case? 

• The original case was that Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 are the grandson and daughter respectively of one late Kunhimatha. 
• She had owned the plaint schedule property which is 21.25 cents of land and a building therein. Kunhimatha gifted out the dwelling house and 17 cents of land to her daughter Radha, defendant No.1. 
• Radha did not act upon the gift, signifying its acceptance. Kunhimatha cancelled the gift she executed in favor of Radha and subsequently assigned the entire property to plaintiff No.2. 
• Plaintiff No.2 thereafter assigned the plaint property to plaintiff No.1, a stranger. 
• Kunhimatha's daughter claimed title over the property. She argued that she had accepted the gift.  
• The Trial Court noted that, in the gift deed and in the release deed where Kunhimatha released her entire right over the property to her daughter, it was mentioned that the possession of the property is delivered to the donee. This is sufficient to establish acceptance of the gift. 
• The first appellate court reversed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court.  
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the High Court of Kerala.  
• The High Court allowed the appeal.  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Justice K. Babu observed that no particular mode is prescribed under the law as to the requirement needed to prove acceptance. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. 
• The Court held that since the first gift is valid, the subsequent unilateral cancellation of the gift, even if there was any, does not have any legal validity. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Related to Gifts? 

About: 

• Chapter VII of TPA deals with gifts.  
• A gift is defined in Section 122 of TPA, which reads as follows:  
  • A gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.  
  • Acceptance when to be made – Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void. 

Essentials of Gift: 

• The essential elements of a gift are: 
  • Absence of consideration  
  • Donor  
  • Donee  
  • Subject matter  
  • Transfer  
  • Acceptance 

Acceptance of Gift: 

• The Supreme Court in Asokan v. Lakshmikutty and Ors. (2007) has laid down the principles of acceptance of gift:  
  • Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation.  
  • TPA does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance.  
  • It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question.  
  • There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift.  
  • The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance.  
  • The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. 

Mode of Transfer:  

• Section 123 of TPA lays down two modes for effecting a gift depending on the nature of property.  
• This Section states that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be affected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be affected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered.
  
• The transfer of immovable property must be affected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. 
• Section 123 of the Act supersedes the rule of Hindu Law if there was any making delivery of possession an essential condition for the completion of a valid gift. 
• Section 123 has an overriding effect on the rules of Hindu Law pertaining to gift including the rule that required possession of the property gifted to be given to the donee.  
• In the case of Daulat Singh (dead) through LRs. v. State of Rajasthan (2021), it was held that execution of gift deed duly registered and attested in accordance with Section 123 of the Act and acceptance of such gift makes the gift of the immovable property complete and thereby the donor is divested of the title or interest being gifted, and the donee becomes the owner of the same. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan of Supreme Court discussed the application of doctrine of merger in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. 

What is the Background of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. Case? 

• The case involves multiple civil appeals related to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 
• In one lead case, land belonging to M/s BSK Realtors LLP was acquired. The Delhi High Court allowed their writ petition in 2016, declaring the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. 
• The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed this to the Supreme Court, which dismissed DDA's appeal in 2016 after granting leave. 
• In 2020, a Constitution Bench overturned previous precedent on when land acquisition proceedings lapse under the 2013 Act in the Indore Development Authority case. 
• Based on this, the Government of NCT Delhi filed a new SLP in the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the 2016 High Court judgment that had been upheld by the Supreme Court. 
• M/s BSK Realtors raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, arguing the doctrine of merger applied as the High Court order had merged with the Supreme Court's 2016 dismissal of DDA's appeal. 

What were the Court's Observations?  

• The Court stated it was not necessary to opine either way on the applicability of the doctrine of merger for deciding the cases in Groups A and B.1. 
• However, the Court concurred with and upheld the Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) judgment on the doctrine of merger and rule of stare decisis. 
  • It reiterated that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application, and factors like nature of jurisdiction and subject matter of challenge need to be considered. 
• Importantly, the Court clarified that the extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do complete justice remain an exception to the doctrine of merger and stare decisis. 
• Using these Article 142 powers, the Court issued directions to extend timelines for fresh acquisition proceedings and dispensed with certain requirements, effectively overriding the effects of the doctrine of merger in the interests of justice and public interest. 

What is the Doctrine of Merger?  

• About:  
  • The doctrine of merger posits that once an appeal is decided by a higher court, the lower court's judgment ceases to exist in the eyes of the law, having merged with the appellate court's decision. This principle ensures finality in judicial proceedings and prevents multiple rounds of litigation on the same issue. 
• Rationale Behind the Doctrine: 
  • To maintain judicial hierarchy 
  • To prevent conflicting decisions on the same matter 
  • To ensure finality in litigation 
  • To promote judicial economy by avoiding multiple proceedings 
• Exceptions to the Doctrine of Merger 
  • When the higher court dismisses the appeal on grounds of limitation or lack of jurisdiction 
  • When the higher court remands the matter back to the lower court for fresh consideration 
  • In cases where the Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution 
• Implications 
  • Ensures consistency in judicial decisions 
  • Provides clarity on the final binding judgment 
  • Helps in maintaining judicial discipline 
• Criticisms 
  • May sometimes lead to rigidity in the legal system 
  • Can potentially limit the scope for correction of errors in judgments 

What are the Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Merger?  

• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000): 
  • This case is considered a seminal judgment on the doctrine of merger. 
  • The Supreme Court of India provided a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine and its application. Key points from this judgment include: 
    • The doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application 
    • The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum must be considered 
    • The content or subject matter of challenge in the higher forum is relevant 
• State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (1967) 
  • This case established that when a decree is appealed, and the appellate court modifies it in any manner, the decree of the trial court merges with that of the appellate court. 
• Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) 
  • The Supreme Court held that even if an appeal is dismissed without a speaking order, the doctrine of merger still applies.