The case of Girjesh Dutt v. Datadin is an important judgment under Indian property law, especially related to the rules about transferring property to unborn persons. In this case, a woman (A) gifted her property to her nephew’s daughter (B). According to the terms of the gift, after B, the property was supposed to go to any male descendant of B. If there were no male descendants, it would then go to B’s daughter, and if that too failed, it would finally revert to A’s nephew. However, B died without having any children. This raised a legal question about whether a gift can be made to someone who was not yet born at the time of the transfer.
The matter was examined in light of Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with transfers for the benefit of unborn persons. The court found that while the gift to B was valid because she was alive at the time of the transfer, the gift to B’s unborn daughter was invalid. This was because the law allows property to be given to an unborn person only if the entire interest is transferred to them, and in this case, it was not.
Issue before the Court
Whether the transfer of the property is valid as per the transfer of property act?
You can also read the blog of Vertical reservation & Horizontal reservation.
For more information, visit [ALEC Enquiry].
Analysis of the Court
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified some important legal principles related to the transfer of property to unborn persons. The court held that since B died without a child, C’s claim to the property could not stand. It explained that if a transfer made in favor of one person is legally void, then any future or conditional transfer that depends on the failure of the first one will also be void.
To properly understand this issue, one needs to read Sections 13 and 14 of the Transfer of Property Act together. The law does not allow property to be transferred directly to someone who is not yet born. Instead, it must first be transferred to a living person with a life interest, and only after that can the property pass to the unborn person once they are born. However, the law also requires that the unborn person should receive the entire remaining interest, not just a limited portion. That’s why giving only a life interest to an unborn child is not valid.
In this case, the gift made to B was valid because B was alive. But the gift made to B’s daughter (who was unborn at the time) was declared void because it only created a limited interest. According to Section 13, any interest given to an unborn person must be full and absolute. Additionally, the court also said that the further transfer of the property to A’s nephew (which was supposed to happen if the gift to B’s daughter failed) was also invalid. This is because, under Section 16 of the Act, if the first transfer fails, any subsequent transfer based on that failure also becomes void.
Concluding Remark
Overall, the court reinforced that property transfers involving unborn persons must follow specific rules, and any deviation from them can make the whole arrangement invalid.
