• Today: November 02, 2025

sridhar-v-n-revanna-air-2020-sc-824

02 November, 2025
201
Sridhar v. N. Revanna (AIR 2020 SC 824) – Section 10 TPA restraint on alienation, Section 13 unborn person | The Law Easy

Sridhar v. N. Revanna

Supreme Court of India Year: 2020 Citation: AIR 2020 SC 824 Area: Transfer of Property Reading time: ~7 min
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025
Illustration for Sridhar v. N. Revanna case summary
slug: sridhar-v-n-revanna-air-2020-sc-824 PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 10 TPA; restraint on alienation; gift deed SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 13 TPA; unborn person; void condition; property transfer

Quick Summary

This case answers a straight question: can a gift say “the donee shall never sell”? The Supreme Court said no. A blanket ban on selling is void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The donor gifted land to his grandson in 1957 but added an absolute “no sale” clause. The grandson later sold the land. The Court held the restraint clause was invalid. Section 13 (unborn person) did not apply, because the gift was in favour of a living person.

Issues

  1. Was the “no alienation” condition in the gift deed valid under the TPA?
  2. Did Defendant No. 1 have the right to sell despite that clause?
  3. Did Section 13 TPA (transfer for unborn person) apply to this deed?

Rules

  • Section 10 TPA: An absolute restraint on alienation in a transfer (including gifts) is void, except limited lease cases.
  • Section 13 TPA: Applies when property is transferred for an unborn person; the transfer must cover the whole interest. Not applicable when the primary transferee is alive.
  • A gift cannot strip the donee of the basic power to transfer.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for Sridhar v. Revanna
05.06.1957: Muniswamappa gifts land to his grandson, N. Revanna (D1), with a clause: donee and younger brothers cannot alienate.
Oct 1985: Revanna executes three sale deeds in favour of D2–D5.
1995: Plaintiffs (sons of Revanna) sue—seek title declaration, cancellation of sales, and injunction.
21.11.2001 (Trial Court): Suit dismissed; D1 had right to alienate.
2002 (High Court): Partly reverses—upholds restraint; allows recovery of sale consideration but not property.
Supreme Court (2020): Final ruling—restraint clause void; sales valid; Section 13 not attracted.

Arguments

Appellants (Sridhar & Anr.)

  • Gift restricted alienation; sales by D1 are void.
  • Gift mentioned younger brothers and male children; invoke Section 13.

Respondents (D1 & purchasers)

  • Absolute restraint is void under Section 10; therefore, sales stand.
  • Gift was to a living donee; Section 13 not applicable.

Judgment

Judgment illustration for Sridhar v. Revanna

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s view on the restraint clause. It declared the clause void under Section 10 TPA. Since the restraint failed, the sale deeds executed by D1 remained valid.

The Court also held that Section 13 did not apply because the transfer was made to a living donee; references to future brothers did not convert it into a transfer for an unborn person.

Ratio Decidendi

A gift cannot carry an absolute ban on sale. Such a restraint directly hits Section 10 TPA and is void. Section 13 TPA is irrelevant where the primary beneficiary is alive at the time of transfer.

Why It Matters

  • Drafting clarity: avoid absolute restraints; use lawful, limited conditions if needed.
  • Certainty in titles: void restraints cannot cloud later alienations.
  • Exam aid: clean separation of Sections 10 and 13 in problem questions.

Key Takeaways

Absolute “no sale” clauses in gifts are void (S.10).
Sales made by the donee stand valid when restraint is void.
Section 13 applies only to transfers for unborn persons covering full interest.
Smart drafting beats sweeping restrictions.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: No Absolute Gift Bans”No restraint, Absolute is void, Gift deed, Buyer protected.

  1. Read the clause: is it a total ban?
  2. Recall Section 10—absolute restraints are void.
  3. Reject Section 13 if the donee is a living person.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can a gift impose a complete bar on sale? Does S.13 affect validity?
Rule: S.10 voids absolute restraints; S.13 applies only to unborn beneficiaries covering the whole interest.
Application: Clause was absolute; donee was alive; therefore S.10 voided restraint; S.13 inapplicable.
Conclusion: Restraint void; sales valid; plaintiffs not absolute owners.

Glossary

Restraint on alienation
A condition that prevents the owner from selling or transferring property.
Section 10 TPA
Declares absolute restraints void in transfers, except limited lease situations.
Section 13 TPA
Allows transfers for unborn persons only if the entire interest is kept for them.

FAQs

Only an absolute restraint is void. Reasonable, partial limits allowed by law may survive depending on context (e.g., leases).

Because the gift was to a living donee. Mentions of future brothers did not convert it into a transfer to an unborn person.

Avoid blanket “no sale” clauses. If control is needed, consider conditions precedent or limited restraints permitted by statute.

No. With the restraint clause void, the sales by the donee were valid. The plaintiffs could not claim absolute title.
Transfer of Property Restraint on Alienation Section 10 TPA
Reviewed by The Law Easy

Comment

Nothing for now