GIANI RAM NARSINGH Vs. BALMAKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the defendant against an appellate decree of District Judge, Maharaj Kishore reversing the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit possession.

(2.) Balmukand plaintiff purchased the 1/5th share of the house in dispute at a court sale and then he made a gift of his share to Mangtu Ram defendant 1 who was his 'prohat'. He alleges that the gift was conditional in that the sale or mortgage of the property by the donee was prohibited and, therefore, the alienation made by the donee Mangtu Ram in favour of Giani Ram was ineffectual and the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the property gifted by him. In the deed of gift made by Balmukand there was a condition in the following words:

(3.) The learned District Judge has held that to transactions of this kind Section 126, T. P. Act is applicable. It provides that the donor and the donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable ......... at the mere will of the donor, is void. The case which is now before me is of a different nature. An absolute gift has been made in favour of a 'prohat' but it is subject to a condition restricting the alienation. In cases such as this the condition is void. It has been so held in 'Dugdale v. Dugdale', (1888) 38 Ch. D. 176(A), and the law is so stated at P. 756 of Mulla's Transfer of Property Act: