It is not permissible to give away oral gifts by the way of Pasupu Kumkuma.
11 In the case of Anathula Sudhakar.
Feel free to comment below share the article.Inevitably therefore, such a gift of immovable property, the consideration whereof would be love and affection could come within the meaning of Section 123 thereof.It may be that under the Traditional Hindu Law no writing for the validity of transfer of property made at the time of marriage was necessary.But after the.17 of the Registration Act.What are your views on this?Any such contention would be flying in the face of Section 123,.The way of giving a property by the way of Pasupu Kumkuma is involuntary and considerate and does not hold the essential ingredients of a gift.Hence, both under general Hindu law and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the father has a duty to give some property on the occasion of her marriage.Wir verwenden Cookies, um Inhalte zu personalisieren, Werbeanzeigen maßzuschneidern und zu messen sowie die Sicherheit unserer Nutzer zu erhöhen.
Conclusion It is believed that the rule of Hindu Law, where the delivery of possession is considered essential to the validity of a gift has been abrogated by application of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in regards to Hindu gifts.
Every batch of Raw material and finished product are strictly tested for compliance.
The case was dragged through the courts for over 30 years until the apex court upheld the decision of first appellate court to make the registration of the gifts given by way of Pasupu Kumkuma mandatory.It is therefore necessary in order to constitute a valid gift that not only it should be in writing but it must also be registered.Once judiciary opined on the this matter, the cases piled up in courts regarding the validity of the transferred property and disputes between family as to claim of the property given by the way of Pasupu Kumkuma.122, it does not require a written document or a registration by law; such property can be transferred by mere oral declaration.The Judiciary Over-Rules, the decision rendered in the above-mentioned case faced criticism and was seen as an error made by the judges by not realizing the essence of the issue.Chandrasekhara Reddy (supra) ITR 849 4 AIR1980AP139.By virtue of this Act, mere delivery is not sufficient to constitute a gift; movable property being an exception to the rule.
Since it does not fall in any of the transactions enumerated in Section 122 of the.P Act and is not a gift with this the meaning of the aforementioned provision, such transfer does not require any registration.