Section 535: Gifts that cannot be revoked for ingratitude

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 320/2538 (1995) ★ Landmark

   A charge for the purposes of section 535(2) must exist at the time the gift is agreed, and a mortgage that secures the donee's own debt is not such a charge. Giving land without discharging that mortgage is therefore not a gift encumbered with a charge.

   The plaintiff gave the defendant land that was mortgaged to secure the debts of a limited partnership of which the defendant was the managing partner and for which he was personally liable without limit under section 1077(2) with section 1087, and the defendant admitted the mortgage secured his own debt. The Court held that giving the land without discharging that mortgage was therefore not a gift encumbered with a charge under section 535(2), so the gift did not fall within the class that cannot be revoked for ingratitude.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 10344/2551 (2008)

   A gift of land made while the donor keeps a usufruct over it - here the parents right to take the rent of the paddy land and the proceeds of the orchard fruit - is a gift of property subject to an encumbering charge under section 535(2), and cannot be revoked for the donee ingratitude under section 531. Standing is a question of law concerning public order, so the appellate court may raise it of its own motion under Civil Procedure Code section 142(5) even though the donee never pleaded it.

   A mother sued her fourth son to revoke for ingratitude the gift of two plots she and her late husband had made to him when they divided house land, paddy land and orchard among all nine children. Both sides evidence agreed that on each gift the parents kept the right to take the income: the rent of the paddy land, and the fruit of the orchard or its sale proceeds if the child sold it. The Supreme Court held that made these gifts of property subject to an encumbering charge under section 535(2), so the mother had no standing to sue for revocation for ingratitude under section 531. It further held that standing is a question of law concerning public order which the Court of Appeal could raise of its own motion under Civil Procedure Code section 142(5), even though the son had neither pleaded it in the first court nor appealed on it.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.