NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma: Supreme Court Case

The NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) case was in the spotlight because it acknowledged the distinction between a gift deed, settlement deed and a Will under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The decision of the Supreme Court explained that once a gift deed is accepted and registered, it becomes irrevocable. The case highlighted important principles related to property transfer and revocation. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) Introduction

In NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) the Supreme Court acknowledged the property conflict between family members over the legality of a settlement deed executed in 1985. The conflict originated when the daughter claimed ownership of the property based on the deed, while the son argued it was a revocable Will. The High Court of Kerala overturned the lower courts’ findings and held that the settlement deed as a valid gift deed. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court.

Download NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma PDF

The case at hand involves property conflict between family members regarding legality of 1985 settlement deed. The dispute arose when Plaintiff claimed ownership of property based on deed . On the other hand, Appellant contended that the document was a Will and not a gift deed and allowed their father to revoke it through subsequent transactions. The High Court of Kerala overturned the findings of the lower courts. The following are the brief facts of NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma -

Background and Dispute

The appeal arose from a property dispute where the High Court of Kerala allowed Regular Second Appeal. The High Court reversed the findings of the lower courts. The Court declared that Respondent No.1 (plaintiff/daughter) possessed valid right, title and interest over the suit schedule property based on a settlement deed dated 26th June, 1985 (Ext. A1). In addition to this, the High Court declared that the cancellation deed (Ext. A2) and sale deed (Ext. A3) both executed on 19th October, 1993 by Defendant No.1 (father) in favor of the Appellant (Defendant No.2/son) were not binding on the plaintiff.

Initiation of the Suit

Respondent No.1 filed a suit in the lower court and contended that the ownership of the property by virtue of the registered deed dated 26.06.1985. She sought:

• A declaration of her right, title and interest over the property.
• Nullify the cancellation deed and sale deed executed by her father on 19th October, 1993.

During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.1 (father) passed away on 6th June, 1995. Subsequently, his legal heirs, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded as Defendant Nos.3 and 4.

Contention of the Appellant

The Appellant (Defendant No.2/son) contended that:

• The 1985 document was a Will and not a gift deed.
• The father retained ownership and possession of the property.

Decisions of Lower Courts

• The Trial Court dismissed the suit and accepted the contention of the Appellant that the 1985 document was merely a Will.
• However, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and concluded that the document of 1985 was not a gift deed.

Decision of the High Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the Respondent No.1 filed Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court -

• Reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts
• Construed the 1985 document as a gift deed that effectively transferred ownership to Respondent No.1
• Held that the subsequent cancellation and sale deeds executed by the father in favor of the appellant were invalid

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

During the pendency of present appeal before Supreme Court Respondent No.2 passed away. The Court deleted Respondent No.2’s name from the array of parties and amended the cause title accordingly.

NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) Legal Issues

The following issues were addressed in NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) -

• The main issue was whether the settlement deed executed by the father in favor of his daughter constituted a gift deed, settlement, or Will. The determination of its nature would impact whether it could be revoked unilaterally by the father.
• The Court had to decide whether the father's act of executing a cancellation deed and subsequent sale deed in favor of his son was legally valid. This involved analyzing whether the deed qualified as a revocable Will or an irrevocable gift/settlement deed.
• Whether the daughter’s acceptance of the settlement deed, evidenced by her receipt of the original document and its registration, satisfied the requirements of a valid gift under Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act 1882.

Section 122 and Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act played an important role in NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025). The following are the analysis of these provisions :

Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act

Section 122 defines a gift as the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person (donor) to another (donee) and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.

Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act

Section 41 provides that a transfer of property by an ostensible owner is valid if the transferee acts in good faith, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had the authority to make the transfer.

NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) Judgment and Impact

In NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) the 2- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice JB Pardiawala and Justice R Mahadevan upheld the decision of the High Court. The Court affirmed that the settlement deed executed in 1985 was a valid gift deed rather than a Will. Justice Mahadevan, who authored the judgment, distinguished between a gift deed, settlement deed and Will to determine the validity of the father's unilateral revocation.

The Supreme Court explained that a gift is a voluntary transfer made without consideration and requires acceptance during the lifetime of the donor. It highlighted that registration is mandatory for immovable property and possession is not essential to validate a gift if the donee has accepted it.

The Court in NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma also stated that when a transfer occurs out of love, care and affection grants immediate rights to the donee while the donor retains a life interest, it qualifies as a settlement. Unlike a gift, a Will takes effect only after the death of the testator and remains revocable during their lifetime.

The Court examined the 1985 deed and concluded that it created an immediate interest in favor of the daughter (Respondent No.1), even though her father retained a life interest. The Court rejected the argument that the deed was a Will and ruled that the settlement deed was valid because it met the requirements under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court also held that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed and subsequent sale to the appellant (son) were unjustified and void. It ruled that once the daughter accepted the gift and the deed was registered, it became irrevocable.

The Court emphasized that once a gift is accepted and registered, it cannot be revoked unilaterally or canceled by the Registry Department. Therefore, the father's attempt to cancel the gift deed and transfer the property to the son was legally invalid.

On the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma dismissed appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court. The Court also recognized the 1985 settlement deed as a valid transfer of ownership to the daughter.

Conclusion

In NP Saseendran vs NP Ponnamma (2025) the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court. The Court ruled that the 1985 settlement deed as a valid gift deed. The Court held that the father’s unilateral cancellation and subsequent sale to the son were legally invalid. It explained that a gift, once accepted and registered, becomes irrevocable.