V RANGA RAO Vs. KITHORI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As I understand Exhibit 1, I feel no doubt that it is in terms an absolute gift deed of immoveable property, the denee s possession of which is postponed till the happening of a certain future event, namely, the death of the donor,

(2.) When the clause reserving1 to the donor a power of revocation at her mere will, which, if it had remained, would, under Section 126 of the Transfer Of Property Act, have invalidated the gift, was struck out from the draft deed by consent of the parties, all that conditional character which the draft possessed was taken away from the deed as finally executed.

(3.) The learned Judge was in error in thinking that because there is some ambiguity about the expression "whereas the donee has served the donor faithfully for the period of ten years and upwards and wishes to continue his services to her", oral evidence could be let in to prove that future service was an essential condition of the contract. As in Madhavrao Moreshvar v. Kashibai Dattubhai 5 Ind. Cas. 599: 34 B. 287: 18 Bom, L. R 9. the rendering of the services was not the consideration but merely the motive of the grant, and the motive in this case is immaterial. I consider that to introduce a condition into a document that is on its face an absolute and unconditional document, is substantially to vary its terms within the meaning of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, Respondent s Counsel has attempted to support the lower Appellate Court s decision on the ground that the words "to hold the same unto the donee as and from the date of the death of the donor", together with reference, to future services, indicated that the parties intended that no interest should vest in the donee until the death of the donor, and, therefore, that the attaching of a condition as to service during the donor s lifetime could be proved as a condition precedent to the gift taking effect.