# Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors v. Yaduraj Narain

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 260
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-04
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 381 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-archana-tyagi-ors-v-yaduraj-narain-53900
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the donee, having
constructed and operated a cinema hall on the
land gifted conditionally by donor for that
specific purpose, acquired full ownership rights
upon fulfillment of condition, or whether the
donor's successors retained a right to revoke the
gift and reclaim possession of property on the
ground that the donee subsequently demolished
the cinema hall and commenced construction of
a multiplex or commercial complex, allegedly in
violation of terms of conditional gift deed.

Headnotes
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 38, 41 -
Transfer of Property Act; 1882 - s. 126 -
Plaintiffs - appellants being the legal heirs
of late Pt. Parmanand Sharma, instituted
Original Suit No. 434 of 2021 before the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut,
seeking
a
decree
of
declaration,
possession, and permanent injunction in
respect of land situated at Delhi Road,
Meerut,
originally
gifted
by
their
predecessor to late Yaduraj Narain, father
of defendant, through two registered gift
deeds dated 17.06.1968 and 18.06.1968,
for the specific purpose of constructing
and operating a cinema hall to serve the
public - It was contended that donee
accepted the gift and constructed the
"Nandan Cinema Hall" thereon, which
remained functional for decades, however,
after its closure, defendant demolished
the
structure
and
commenced
construction of multiplex and commercial
complex, thereby acting contrary to stated
purpose and violating condition of gift -
Plaintiffs claimed that by such breach, gift
stood revoked u/s 126 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and they were entitled
to restoration of possession - On this,
defendant contested the claim, asserting
that condition of gift had been fully
satisfied by constructing and operating
cinema hall for over fifty years, that no
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
261
clause in deed provided for reversion and
that subsequent redevelopment of land
was within his ownership rights - Trial
court dismissed the suit, holding that gift
was absolute and irrevocable, prompting
the plaintiffs to prefer instant First Appeal
u/s 96 C.P.C. before High Court.

Held: It is apparent from gift deeds that sole
purpose of gift was to enable donee to construct
cinema hall on the gifted land, after taking due
permission from concerned
authorities, in
accordance with bye-laws prevailing at that time
and if such permission was not granted to the
donee, then it was expressly agreed that gifted
land would not be used for any other purpose
and further if, the donee failed to construct the
cinema hall, then donor would be entitled to
take back gifted land - Donee after accepting
the gift, duly obtained the requisite permission
from concerned authorities, under the relevant
byelaws and thereafter, started construction of
cinema hall, which was completed in year 1974,
which came to be known as Nandan cinema hall
- Cinema h

## Text

_Characters 0–39,970 of 57,867. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39970 for what follows._

260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suit for the relief of possession of the
disputed house and for declaration that
the sale deed of the disputed house be
executed by defendant no.2 in her
favour. The trial court has rightly
decreed the plaintiff's suit partially
against defendant no.1, for an amount
of ₹ 8,46,865/- with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date when this amount
was given to the defendant no.1, till the
actual date of realisation. Accordingly,
this appeal is meritless and is liable to
be dismissed.

40. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013
passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 1485
of 2006, is affirmed.

41. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.

42. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

43. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties shall
bear their respective costs.

44. Office is directed to prepare the
decree, accordingly.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 260
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 381 of 2024

Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Yaduraj Narain ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants:
Shiv Sagar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the donee, having
constructed and operated a cinema hall on the
land gifted conditionally by donor for that
specific purpose, acquired full ownership rights
upon fulfillment of condition, or whether the
donor's successors retained a right to revoke the
gift and reclaim possession of property on the
ground that the donee subsequently demolished
the cinema hall and commenced construction of
a multiplex or commercial complex, allegedly in
violation of terms of conditional gift deed.

Headnotes
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 38, 41 -
Transfer of Property Act; 1882 - s. 126 -
Plaintiffs - appellants being the legal heirs
of late Pt. Parmanand Sharma, instituted
Original Suit No. 434 of 2021 before the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut,
seeking
a
decree
of
declaration,
possession, and permanent injunction in
respect of land situated at Delhi Road,
Meerut,
originally
gifted
by
their
predecessor to late Yaduraj Narain, father
of defendant, through two registered gift
deeds dated 17.06.1968 and 18.06.1968,
for the specific purpose of constructing
and operating a cinema hall to serve the
public - It was contended that donee
accepted the gift and constructed the
"Nandan Cinema Hall" thereon, which
remained functional for decades, however,
after its closure, defendant demolished
the
structure
and
commenced
construction of multiplex and commercial
complex, thereby acting contrary to stated
purpose and violating condition of gift -
Plaintiffs claimed that by such breach, gift
stood revoked u/s 126 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and they were entitled
to restoration of possession - On this,
defendant contested the claim, asserting
that condition of gift had been fully
satisfied by constructing and operating
cinema hall for over fifty years, that no
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
261
clause in deed provided for reversion and
that subsequent redevelopment of land
was within his ownership rights - Trial
court dismissed the suit, holding that gift
was absolute and irrevocable, prompting
the plaintiffs to prefer instant First Appeal
u/s 96 C.P.C. before High Court.

Held: It is apparent from gift deeds that sole
purpose of gift was to enable donee to construct
cinema hall on the gifted land, after taking due
permission from concerned
authorities, in
accordance with bye-laws prevailing at that time
and if such permission was not granted to the
donee, then it was expressly agreed that gifted
land would not be used for any other purpose
and further if, the donee failed to construct the
cinema hall, then donor would be entitled to
take back gifted land - Donee after accepting
the gift, duly obtained the requisite permission
from concerned authorities, under the relevant
byelaws and thereafter, started construction of
cinema hall, which was completed in year 1974,
which came to be known as Nandan cinema hall
- Cinema hall remained functional till year 2021,
when it was demolished for constructing a
multiplex, keeping in view, the changing times
and attitude/taste of viewers, who intended to
visit cinema hall, otherwise the donee would not
have survived in this business - The donee,
having
complied
with
gift
conditions
by
constructing and operating a cinema hall on
gifted land for nearly 47 years, cannot be said
to have breached terms of gift - With the
conditions fully satisfied, donor's successors
have no right to revoke gift or reclaim
possession - Donor stood divested of all
ownership rights in the gifted land once
compliance occurred - Consequently, as the
lawful owner, donee cannot be restrained from
demolishing the old cinema hall and raising a
modern multiplex having some shops providing
eatables to cinema goers and also affording
some shopping opportunities to them - Thus,
appeal has no merits and liable to be dismissed.
[Paras 32, 36, 39 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma and Others,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 626; Sridhar and
Another v. N. Revanna and Others, (2020) 11
SCC 221; Narmadaben Maganlal Thakker v.
Pranjivandas
Maganlal
Thakkerand
Others,
(1997) 2 SCC 255; Renikuntla Rajamma
(Dead)
By
Legal
Representatives
v.
K.
Sarwanamma, (2014) 9 SCC 445; Rajvir Singh
v. Randhir Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine ALL
6235; Asokan v Lakshmikutty and Others,
(2007) 13 SCC 210 - distinguished

Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) through Lrs v.
Laxmibai
Narayan
Satose
Since
deceased
through Lrs. and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
758; R Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and
Village Industries Board, (2024) SCC OnLine
SC 3037; J Radha Krishna v. Pagadala Bharathi
and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1447 -
referred to

List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Transfer of Property
Act, 1882

List of Keywords
First
Appeal
u/s
96
C.P.C.;
Permanent
injunction; Possession and ownership rights;
Registered gift deed; Conditional gift; Not a
lease deed; Violated the terms conditions of gift
deed; Mesne profits; Revocation of gift; Section
126 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882;
Relationship
of
licensor
and
licensee;
Interpretation of conditions of gift deeds;
Fulfilment of condition; Revert back of gifted
land to donor or his successors; Building plan;
Meerut Development Authority; Reconstruction/
remodelling Nandan cinema hall; Purpose of
gift; Gifted land will not be use for any other
purpose/usage; Ownership rights in the gifted
land;
Donee
and
donor
relationship;
Construction and operation of cinema hall;
Demolition; Multiplex / Shopping construction;
Adverse possession; Perverse finding; Donor
cannot claim back ownership and possession of
gifted land.; Appeal dismissed as meritless;
Impugned decree affirmed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
381 of 2024
From
the
Judgment
and
Decree
dated
16.03.2024 passed by the Court of Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division) - Second, Meerut
in Original Suit No. 1510 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shiv Sagar Singh

Adv. for the Respondent:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant first appeal under
section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the
plaintiff against judgment and decree dated
16.3.2024
passed
by
the
Court
of
Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) -
Second, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1510
of 2021 Archana Tyagi and others vs.
Yaduraj Narain, whereby the plaintiffs suit
for the recovery of possession, permanent
injunction and mesne profits,regarding the
land gifted by their predecessor Raghukul
Narain, has been dismissed.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff- appellants filed a suit
in the trial court with the averments that
their predecessor Raghukul Narain(donor),
had executed a gift deed on 8.2.1968
regarding land situated in khasra No. 4352,
having area of 1104 square yards, the
details of which were mentioned in the
schedule of the plaint, in favour of his
nephew /defendant Yaduraj Narain(donee),
on the defendant's request. The gift deed
was registered on 24.2.1968 in the office of
Sub-Registrar, Meerut. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that the gift was conditional that
the defendant would construct a cinema
hall on the gifted land ,after taking due
permission and if, the cinema hall could not
be constructed, then the gifted land would
revert back to the donor or his successors,
whoever is alive. According to the
plaintiffs, the defendant duly accepted the
conditional gift.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that
another
gift
deed
was
executed
on
30.10.1968 , consisting one plot of land of
area 466.66 square yards and the other plot
of land of 35 square yards, the smaller plot
was to be used as a passage and the whole
land was situated in khasra No. 4352, Garh
Road, near Sohrab Gate, Meerut. This gift
deed was registered on 8.11.1968 in the
office of Sub-Registrar, Meerut. Both the
gifts were conditional that if, due to some
reason, permission to construct cinema hall
is not granted by the competent authorities
or if, the building of cinema hall is not
constructed, then the gifted land would
revert back to the donor or his successors,
whoever is alive, and the defendant would
have no objection to it. It was further
agreed that a small area of 35 square yards
would be used as a passage by both the
predecessors
of
plaintiffs
and
the
defendant, which would not be taken back.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in
the year 2019 their predecessor late Rajeev
Tyagi came to know, that the defendant
intended to demolish the existing Nandan
cinema hall and in its place, construct a
multiplex/commercial complex for business
purposes and for this, the defendant has
submitted a building plan before the
Meerut
Development
Authority
for
approval. The plaintiffs contended that
their
consent
was
not
obtained
for
demolishing the existing Nandan cinema
hall and in its place, constructing multiplex
/commercial complex, which proves that
the defendant has deliberately violated the
conditions of the gift deed. Subsequently,
Rajeev Tyagi gave a notice dated 7.8.2019
to the defendant, Vice-Chairman/Secretary,
Meerut Development Authority, Chief
Development
Officer,
Meerut
for
restraining the defendant from constructing
the multiplex/ commercial complex and for
not sanctioning the building plan, because
the land was gifted with the condition that
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
263
only a cinema hall would be constructed on
it. It was further averred that the defendant
was not conferred any ownership right in
the gifted land and a relationship of
licensor and licensee, existed between
Raghukul Narain and the defendant.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the
defendant has deliberately violated the
terms of the gift deed and as such, the
plaintiffs do not want to continue the
relationship of licensor- licensee between
them. A legal notice was given by the
plaintiffs on 11.10.2021 terminating the
license of the defendant and directing him
to hand over the vacant possession of the
disputed
land
after
removing
the
superstructure and when this was not
complied with by the defendant, the
plaintiffs have filed the suit for the
following reliefs:-

(i) by decree of mandatory
injunction granted in favour of the
plaintiffs
against
the
defendant,
the
defendant be directed to hand over the
vacant and physical possession of the land
gifted
to
it,
after
removing
the
superstructure on it, and if the defendant
fails to do so, then it's actual and physical
possession be handed to the plaintiffs by
court , by adopting due procedure of law.

(ii) by decree of permanent
injunction granted in favour of the
plaintiffs
against
the
defendant,
the
defendant be restrained from selling the
disputed land, mortgaging it, charging it,
creating any lien on it or constructing
multiplex/commercial complex on it or
altering its condition.

(iii) by decree of the court
granted in favour of the plaintiffs against
the defendant, the defendant be directed to
pay ₹ 5,000/- towards the cost of the legal
notice.

(iv) by decree of the court granted
in favour of the plaintiffs against the
defendant, the plaintiffs be awarded mesne
profits at the rate of ₹ 33,300/- per day
from the date of filing of the suit till the
date of actual possession, regarding which
the court fees would be paid at the time of
execution.

(v) the costs of the suit be also
awarded to the plaintiffs.

Defendant's case

6. The defendant Yaduraj Narain filed
his written statement in the trial court in
which he accepted that the plaintiffs
predecessor
Raghukul
Narain
had
conditionally
gifted
his
land
for
constructing a cinema hall on it. He
contended that in terms of the conditions of
the gift deed, he had constructed Nandan
cinema hall, after obtaining due permission
and as such, complied with the conditional
gift. He averred that since he had complied
with the conditions of the gift, as such, the
plaintiffs were not entitled to revoke the
gift and take any other action against him.
He specifically pleaded that after the
execution of the gift deed dated 8.2.1968
and 30.10.1968, he had constructed Nandan
cinema hall in the year 1974, after taking
due permission and had operated the
cinema hall on the gifted land, in
accordance with the terms of the gift deed
for a period of 53 years, and as such, the
plaintiffs had no right to revoke the gift in
the year 2021.

7. The defendant further averred that it
was not mentioned in both the gift deeds
that in future, in any situation whatsoever,
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the land would not be used for any other
purpose. It was further submitted that
keeping in view the prevailing situation, a
building plan was submitted to the Meerut
Development Authority for reconstruction/
remodelling the Nandan cinema hall, which
was
duly
approved
by
the
Meerut
Development Authority, in accordance with
the
UP
government
order,
which
encouraged
cinema
business.
The
defendant further averred that previously he
was using the land after constructing a
cinema hall on it and subsequently also, he
will utilise the land for operating a cinema
hall on it. It was further averred that in the
revenue records, the name of defendant has
been mutated and as such, he is the owner
of the gifted land, in accordance with the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,
from which he cannot be divested.

8. It was further averred that if, it is
presumed that the gift deeds are null and
void ab-initio then, since the defendant is
in, hostile, open, continuous possession of
the gifted land for 53 years, as such, he has
perfected title of the gifted land on the
basis of adverse possession and on this
ground, the plaintiffs suit for the relief of
possession is barred by limitation. It was
further submitted that since the defendant is
the owner of the gifted land as such, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to get any mesne
profit. The plaintiffs suit is barred by
Section 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief
Act. The defendant is the true owner of the
disputed land as such, against the true
owner, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get
the relief of permanent injunction.

9. It was further averred that the
defendant is constructing a multiplex on the
gifted land, with all the modern facilities,
whose budgeted cost of construction is about
₹ 20 crores and till date, the defendant has
spent about ₹ 2 crores and on the spot,
construction material of about ₹70 lakhs is
lying and if the defendant is restrained from
construction, then he will suffer monetary
loss as well as physical damage, because
basement has been dug. It was submitted that
the plaintiffs suit has only been filed to harass
the defendant and as such, it be dismissed
with a special costs of ₹ 5 lakhs.

10. The plaintiffs filed replica in the trial
court in which, they reiterated the plaint
submissions and denied the averments of the
defendant. It was reiterated that the gift was
conditional, according to which cinema hall
had to be constructed on the gifted land and
further, the gifted land could have only been
used for constructing a cinema hall on it and
the ownership rights in the gifted land never
devolved on the defendant. The possession of
the defendant always remained permissive. It
was further averred that after demolishing the
cinema hall, the defendant has started
constructing a multiplex/ shopping complex,
which the defendant has got no right to do,
which proves that the defendant has violated
the conditions of the gift deed and as such,
the plaintiffs have a right to revoke the gift
and claim back the possession of the gifted
land.

11. The trial court on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues on 6.9.2022, which read as under:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs, on the
basis of the plaint averments, are entitled
to get back the vacant possession of the
property mentioned in schedule A and B, at
the end of the plaint?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs, on the
basis of plaint averments, are entitled to
get the relief of permanent injunction
regarding the disputed property?
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
265

(iii) Whether no cause of action
has arisen to the plaintiffs for filing the
suit?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to get the costs of notice amounting
to ₹ 5,000/- from the defendant?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to get mesne profits at the rate of ₹
33,300/- per day, regarding the disputed
property?

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs suit is
undervalued?

(vii) Whether the court fees paid
is insufficient?

(viii) Whether the plaintiffs suit is
barred by limitation?

(ix) Whether the plaintiffs suit is
barred by Section 38 and 41 of the Specific
Relief Act?

(x) Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to get any other relief?

12. During trial, on behalf of the
plaintiffs Amit Narain Singh Tyagi was
examined as PW-1 and on behalf of the
defendant, Devesh Narain was examined as
DW-1.

13. The trial court vide judgment and
decree dated 16.3.2024 has dismissed the
plaintiffs suit. The trial court decided issue
number 1,2,4,5,6,10 in favour of the
defendant and issue No.3,7,8,9 was decided
in favour of the plaintiff.

14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -
appellants submitted that the donor gifted
the
land
only
for
the
purpose
of
constructing cinema hall on it, and the
defendant after accepting the conditional
gift, was bound to obey the conditions of
the gift. Learned counsel submitted that the
defendant
after
having
accepted
the
conditional gift and constructing a cinema
hall on it, was not entitled to demolish the
cinema hall and in its place, construct a
multiplex/shopping
complex,
which
amounts to violation of the terms of the gift
deed as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to
revoke the gift and claim back the
possession of the gifted land. Learned
counsel further submitted that the donee
was never permitted to change the usage of
the land, which was supposed to be used
for constructing only cinema hall, but by
constructing a multiplex/shopping complex
the donee -defendant has changed the usage
of the land, which was not permitted in
terms of the gift deed. The defendant has
admitted
that
he
is
constructing
a
multiplex/shopping
complex
on
the
disputed land after obtaining permission
and after getting sanctioned the building
plan
from
the
Meerut
Development
Authority, as such, the defendant cannot be
permitted to change the usage of the gifted
land. Learned counsel further submitted
that the trial court has erred in overlooking
the above facts and has recorded a perverse
finding that the defendant has duly
complied with the terms and conditions of
the gift, after having operated for more than
53 years, cinema hall on the disputed land,
as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for
the reliefs sought in the plaint. Learned
counsel further submitted that since no
duration for operating the cinema hall was
mentioned in the gift deed as such, a
cinema hall once constructed on the gifted
land, was supposed to remain in existence
forever and by demolishing the cinema hall
in the year 2021, the defendant has violated
the terms and conditions of the gift, as such
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the plaintiff -appellants are entitled to get
their suit decreed.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the
defendant- respondent submitted that the
donee-defendant
had
accepted
the
conditional gift in the year 1968 and had
accordingly, after obtaining due permission
from the concerned authorities, constructed
Nandan cinema hall in the year 1974 on the
gifted land, and thereafter, operated the
cinema hall for 47 years, till the year 2021.
Learned counsel further submitted that after
having constructed and operated the cinema
hall on the gifted land for 53 years, the
donee has fully complied with the terms of
the gift deed. Learned counsel further
submitted that since no duration was
mentioned in the gift deed for which the
cinema hall , after construction ,was to
remain functional or to remain in existence,
as such, it cannot be interpreted in the
manner, that forever cinema hall had to be
operated on the gifted land. Learned
counsel
further
submitted
that
the
defendant has keeping in view the changing
times and taste of the people, to remain
profitable in the cinema business, has only
demolished the old Nandan cinema hall
which was having only one screen, and by
constructing a multiplex in its place, which
is also a modern cinema hall having three
screens. Also, as per the prevailing trend in
the multiplexes there are several shops
which sell coffee, sweets, popcorn, etc.
catering to the demand of the viewers,
which cannot be deemed as changing the
usage of the gifted land. Learned counsel
further submitted that the dominant purpose
of the multiplex is to screen movies to the
viewers as such, it cannot be said that by
demolishing a single screen cinema hall
and by constructing in its place a multiplex
having three screens, a change of usage has
been effected by the donee. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal
has got no merits and it be dismissed.

16. Learned counsel for the defendant-
respondent in support of his submissions
has placed reliance upon the following
judgments:-

(i) N.P. Saseendran vs. N.P.
Ponnamma and Others 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 626

(ii) Sridhar and Another vs. N.
Revanna and Others (2020) 11 SCC 221

(iii)
Narmadaben
Maganlal
Thakker
vs.
Pranjivandas
Maganlal
Thakkerand Others (1997) 2 SCC 255

(iv) Renikuntla Rajamma(Dead)
By
Legal
Representatives
vs.
K.
Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC 445

(v) Rajvir Singh vs. Randhir
Singh 2024 SCC OnLine ALL 6235

(vi) Asokan vs Lakshmikutty and
Others (2007) 13 SCC 210

17. I've heard the learned counsel of
both the sides and perused the trial court
record and the case law submitted by the
learned counsel.

18. The judgments cited by the learned
counsel
for
the
defendant-respondent
pertain to cases where either the character
or nature of the gift deed was in dispute, or
where the donor had created a life interest
in the subject matter of the gift. However,
such issues do not arise in the present case,
as neither the character nor the nature of
the gift deed is under challenge, nor has the
donor created any life interest in the subject
matter through the said gift deeds.
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
267
Therefore,
the
cited
judgments
are
distinguishable and have no application to
the facts and circumstances of the present
case.

19. On the basis of the arguments of
the learned counsel of the parties, the
following issues arise for determination, in
this appeal:-

(1) Whether the gift deeds were
conditional? If yes, then what were the
conditions of the gift?

(2) Whether the defendant has
complied with the conditions of the gift?

(3) Whether the gift is revocable
in the year 2021,after the donee having
completed the construction of Nandan
cinema hall in the year 1974, and keeping
it functional for 47 years?

20. The controversy in this appeal
hinges on the interpretation of the gift
deeds executed by the predecessor of the
plaintiffs Raghukul Narain(donor) wayback
in the year 1968, in favour of the
defendant(donee). For appreciating the
controversy in issue, it will be appropriate
to reproduce the relevant recitals of the gift
deeds, which read as under(translated in
English, from Hindi):-

First
Gift
Deed
Dated
8.02.1968/24.02.1968

"I Raghukul Narain son of
Raghunandan Richpal caste Tyagi resident
of Mohalla Dhalampara Meerut, is the
owner of land having area of 1104 square
yards, which is shown in red colour in the
annexed map, situated in khasra No. 4352
Garhmukteshwar Road, near Sohrab Gate,
Meerut. My nephew Yaduraj's land is
adjoining to my land, who intends to
construct a cinema hall on his land, but
since his land is insufficient, according to
the bye laws, for constructing a cinema
hall, as such he requires my land. Hence, I
on my sweet will and consent ,gift the
above land admeasuring 1104 square yards
to Yaduraj Narain on the condition that if
,Yaduraj Narain is granted permission for
constructing cinema hall then, he will
construct the cinema hall and he will be
entitled to use the gifted land for operating
cinema hall on it but if, due to any reason,
permission is not granted or if cinema hall
is not constructed then, the gifted land will
revert back to me or my successors,
whoever is alive at that time and further,
Yaduraj Narain will have no right to use
the gifted land for any other purpose and
the gift has been accepted with the above
condition, by Yaduraj Narain. Both the
parties and their successor will be bound by
the above conditions."

Second Gift Deed Dated
30.10.1968/8.11.1968

"I Raghukul Narain son of
Raghunandan Richpal caste Tyagi resident
of Mohalla Dhalampara Meerut, is the
owner of two pieces of land having area of
466.66 and 35(for passage) square yards,
which are shown in red colour in the
annexed map, situated in khasra No. 4352
Garhmukteshwar Road, near Sohrab Gate,
Meerut. My nephew Yaduraj's land is
adjoining to my above land, who intends to
construct a cinema hall on his land, but
since my land is also required, according to
the cinema bye laws, hence I gift the above
two pieces of land ,having market value of
₹ 10,000 on my sweet will and volition ,to
Yaduraj Narain on the condition that if,
Yaduraj Narain is granted permission for
constructing cinema hall and if, he
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
construct's a cinema hall then, he will be
entitled to use both the gifted land as owner,
but if, due to any reason, permission is not
granted for constructing the cinema hall or
if,cinema hall is not constructed then, I will
be entitled to take back the possession of the
larger piece of the gifted land having area of
466.66 square yards and further, Yaduraj
Narain shall have no right to use the larger
piece of land for any other purpose, but the
smaller piece of land can be used as passage
by me and Yaduraj Narain and this cannot be
taken back.The gift has been accepted with
the above condition by Yaduraj Narain. Both
the parties and their successors will be bound
by the above conditions."

21. It is pertinent to mention here that
there is no dispute regarding the execution
of the gift deeds by the donor and its,
acceptance by the donee. There is also no
dispute that the gift deeds were got
fradulently executed from the donor. The
only dispute is regarding the interpretation
of the conditions of the gift deeds.

22. From the recitals of the gift deeds
mentioned hereinabove, the following facts
are apparent:-

(i) the land of donor and donee
were situated adjacent to each other.

(ii) the donee wanted to construct
a cinema hall on his land ,but it was
insufficient according to the bye-laws
applicable for constructing a cinema hall,
as such, the donor gifted his adjoining land,
to enable the donee to get the cinema hall
constructed on the gifted land.

(iii) the donor exclusively gifted
his land for constructing cinema hall on it
and the donee was not permitted to use the
gifted land for any other purpose/usage.

(iv) the donor gifted his land with
the condition that the donee will obtain
necessary permission from the authorities
for constructing the cinema hall on the
gifted land and if, the permission is
granted, then, the donee will construct the
cinema hall on the gifted land.

(v) the donor also stipulated in
the gift deed that if, for any reason
whatsoever, the donee is not able to obtain
permission for constructing the cinema hall
on the gifted land, or if the cinema hall was
not constructed on the gifted land, then, the
donee will not be able to use the gifted land
for any other purpose/usage and in that
situation, he will be entitled to take back
the possession of the gifted land.

23.The Apex Court in the case of
Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) through Lrs vs.
Laxmibai Narayan Satose Since deceased
through Lrs. and Others 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 758 , while elucidating how to interpret the
terms of a contract, held as under:-

"16. The circumstances dealing with
the dispute between the parties are stated in
required detail in the preceding paragraphs. At
the outset, let us refer to the ratio of this Court
in Provash Chandra Dalui (supra) on the
construction of the basic agreement between
the plaintiff and the defendant. This Court held
that the court must look at the words used in the
contract unless they are such that one may
suspect that they do not covey the intention
correctly. If the words are clear, there is very
little the court can do about it. In constructing a
deed, looking at the surrounding circumstances
and subject matter is legitimate only if the
words used are doubtful.

17. The guide to the construction
of deeds and tools adopted can broadly be
summarised as follows:
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
269

17.1
The
contract
is
first
constructed in its plain, ordinary and
literal meaning. This is also known as the
literal rule of construction.

17.2 If there is an absurdity
created by literally reading the contract, a
shift from literal rule may be allowed. This
construction is generally called the golden
rule of construction.

17.3 Lastly, the contract may be
purposively constructed in light of its
object and context to determine the purpose
of the contract. This approach must be used
cautiously.

18. The construction of a deed is
"generally speaking, a matter of law."
However, when there is an ambiguity in the
deed, determining its meaning is a mixed
question of fact and law.7 This concept is
encapsulated by sections 91 and 92 of the
Evidence Act, 1872.

18.1 Section 91 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 denotes that a deed constitutes
the primary evidence of the terms to which
the parties are to adhere. Whereas section
92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 forbids any
contradictions or variations in a written
document by extrinsic evidence.8 However,
there are exceptions outlined in the proviso
to section 92, that allow variations from
this general rule:

"92. Exclusion of evidence of
oral agreement. - "When the terms of any
such contract, grant or other disposition of
property, or any matter required by law to
be reduced to the form of a document have
been proved according to the last section,
no evidence of any oral agreement or
statement shall be admitted, as between the
parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest, for the purpose
of contradicting, varying, adding to, or
subtracting from, its terms;

Proviso (1) : Any fact may be
proved
which
would
invalidate
any
document, or which would entitle any
person to any decree or order relating
thereto;
such as fraud, intimidation,
illegality, want of due execution, want of
capacity in any contracting party want or
failure of consideration, or mistake in fact
or law:

Proviso (2) : The existence of any
separate oral agreement as to any matter
on which a document is silent, and which is
not inconsistent with its terms, may be
proved. In considering whether or not this
proviso applies, the Court shall have
regard to the degree of formality of the
document:

Proviso (3) : The existence of any
separate oral agreement, constituting a
condition precedent to the attaching of any
obligation under any such contract, grant
or disposition of property, may be proved.

Proviso (4) : The existence of any
distinct subsequent oral agreement to
rescind or modify any such contract, grant
or disposition of property, may be proved,
except in cases in which such contract,
grant or disposition of property is by law
required to be in writing, or has been
registered according to the law in force for
the time being as to the registration of
documents.

Proviso (5) : Any usage or
custom by which incidents not expressly
mentioned in any contract are usually
annexed to contracts of that description,
may be proved; Provided that the annexing
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of such incident would not be repugnant to,
or inconsistent with the express terms of the
contract:

Proviso (6) : Any fact may be
proved which shows in what manner the
language of a document is related to
existing facts."

18.2 The subtle distinction in the
point of law, as carved out by the provisos,
is that the evidence to vary the terms of an
agreement in writing is not admissible, but
evidence to show that there is no agreement
in the first place is admissible.9 Thus,
unless the grounds fall within the provisos
read with the illustrations to section 92,
there is a bar on adducing oral evidence."

24. Section 126 of the Transfer of
Property Act deals when gift may be
suspended or revoked. The section reads as
under:-

"126.
When
gift
may
be
suspended or revoked .- The donor and
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 wholly or in part, at the mere
will of the donor, is void wholly or in
part, as the case may be.

A gift may also be revoked in any
of the cases (save want or failure of
consideration) in which, if it were a
contract, it might be rescinded.

Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot
be revoked.

Nothing contained in this section
shall be deemed to affect the rights of
transferees
for
consideration
without
notice."

25. The Apex Court in the case of R
Thajudeen vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and
Village Industries Board (2024) SCC
OnLine SC 3037, held as under:-

"14. Section 126 of the Act is
drafted in a peculiar way in the sense that
it contains the exceptions to the substantive
law first and then the substantive law. The
substantive law as is carved out from the
simple reading of the aforesaid provision is
that a gift cannot be revoked except in the
cases
mentioned
earlier.
The
said
exceptions are three in number; the first
part provides that the donor and donee
may
agree
for
the
suspension
or
revocation of the gift deed on the
happening of any specified event which
does not depend on the will of the donor.
Secondly, a gift which is revocable wholly
or in part with the agreement of the parties,
at the mere will of the donor is void wholly
or in part as the case may be. Thirdly, a
gift may be revoked if it were in the nature
of a contract which could be rescinded.

15. In simpler words, ordinarily a
gift deed cannot be revoked except for the
three contingencies mentioned above. The
first is where the donor and the donee
agree for its revocation on the happening
of any specified event. In the gift deed,
there is no such indication that the donor
and donee have agreed for the revocation
of the gift deed for any reason much less on
the happening of any specified event.
Therefore, the first exception permitting
revocation of the gift deed is not attracted
in the case at hand. Secondly, a gift deed
would be void wholly or in part, if the
parties agree that it shall be revocable
wholly or in part at the mere will of the
9 All. Smt. Archana Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Yaduraj Narain
271
donor. In the present case, there is no
agreement between the parties for the
revocation of the gift deed wholly or in part
or at the mere will of the donor. Therefore,
the
aforesaid
condition
permitting
revocation or holding such a gift deed to be
void does not apply. Thirdly, a gift is liable
to be revoked in a case where it is in the
nature of a contract which could be
rescinded. The gift under consideration is
not in the form of a contract and the
contract, if any, is not liable to be
rescinded. Thus, none of the exceptions
permitting revocation of the gift deed
stands attracted in the present case. Thus,
leading to the only conclusion that the gift
deed, which was validly made, could not
have been revoked in any manner.
Accordingly,
revocation
deed
dated
17.08.1987 is void ab initio and is of no
consequence which has to be ignored.

16. The non-utilisation of the
suit property for manufacturing Khadi
Lungi and Khadi Yarns etc., the purpose
set out in the gift deed, and keeping the
same as vacant may be a disobedience of
the object of the gift but that by itself
would not attract the power to revoke the
gift deed. There is no stipulation in the gift
deed that if the suit property is not so
utilised, the gift would stand revoked or
would be revoked at the discretion of the
donor."

(emphasis supplied)

26. The Apex Court in the case of J
Radha Krishna vs. Pagadala Bharathi and
Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1447, held
as under:-

"3. It is not in dispute that Shri
KVG Murthy, had executed a document
dated 10.01.1986 (Ex.B.1) - Gift Deed
though claimed as settlement deed by the
appellant - in favour of the respondent, the
alleged foster daughter namely Pagadala
Bharathi.
The
said
document
was
subsequently cancelled by way of deed of
cancellation dated 30.12.1986, whereafter
on 30.09.1992, Shri KVG Murthy executed
a Will in favour of his brother's son. The
High Court while appreciating the evidence
and statutory mechanism in place, more
specifically Section 126 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, in para 19 has
returned the findings as under: -

"19. As stated above, under
Section 126 of the Act, if a gift is to be
revoked or suspended there should be a
right reserved. In fact, the evidence of
PW.1, who is the plaintiff in the suit, only
shows that a donor has executed the gift
deed in favour of defendant no. 1 with the
hope that she will look after him till his
death. As defendant No. 1 was not looking
after
him,
the
settlement
deed
was
cancelled.
Therefore,
it
is
a
clear
admission of a valid execution of the gift
deed Ex.B.1 and no other proof is required.
So far as the right of the deceased to cancel
the gift deed for failure to maintain or look
after the donor is concerned, the evidence
of PW.1 does not show that at the time of
execution of Ex.B.1, there was such an
understanding between the donor and the
first defendant. In the absence of such
agreement, Section 126 of the Act cannot
be relied upon when there is no right
reserved or understanding entered into
between the donor and donee. Therefore,
the decision first referred supra cannot be
pressed into for the benefit of the
respondent herein. In fact, the law of this
aspect is very clear and the courts have
repeatedly held a settlement deed once
executed cannot be cancelled.