Property lawGiftSupreme Court of India

K Balakrishnan v K Kamalam

(2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 68120041 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Donor executed and registered a gift deed. Donee did not sign or expressly accept but got mutation done, paid taxes, and exercised ownership. Validity of the gift was challenged for want of acceptance.
Issue
Whether acceptance by the donee is essential, and whether acceptance can be implied from conduct.
Held
Acceptance is mandatory (S.122). But it need not be express: implied acceptance from conduct (mutation, tax payment, possession, exercising ownership rights) is sufficient.
Principle
Acceptance by donee is essential for valid gift; acceptance can be implied from conduct (mutation, possession, tax payment)
Cite this

Facts

  • Donor executed and registered a gift deed
  • Donee did not sign or expressly accept but got mutation done, paid taxes, and exercised ownership
  • Validity of the gift was challenged for want of acceptance

Issue

  1. Whether acceptance by the donee is essential, and whether acceptance can be implied from conduct.

Held

  • Acceptance is mandatory (S.122). But it need not be express: implied acceptance from conduct (mutation, tax payment, possession, exercising ownership rights) is sufficient.

Ratio decidendi

S.122 requires acceptance "by or on behalf of the donee." The law does not prescribe the form of acceptance. Acts of ownership by the donee, recorded mutation, and payment of property tax are unambiguous evidence of acceptance.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Cite in gift validity problems where express acceptance is absent. Key line: "Acceptance can be inferred from conduct: mutation, possession, and exercise of ownership."

Cite this

Citation

K Balakrishnan v K Kamalam (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 681

Reported: (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 681. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.