Can an immovable property be gifted by oneself to himself?

Can an immovable property be gifted by oneself to himself?

The Gujarat High Court held in Suleman Isubji Dadabhai v. Narabhai Dahyabhai Patel, AIR 1980 Guj. 165, that --

“8. Now, on a close and meticulous analysis of the definition of "gift" given in Section 122, we find that in order that a transaction becomes gift there must firstly be a transfer of an immovable property voluntarily and without consideration.
Therefore, (i) there must be a transferor, (ii) there must be a transferee and (iii) the transfer must be accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
No difficulty arises when the owner of an immovable property gifts it to another person. But, can we say that the owner of an immovable property can gift the property to himself?
We are unable to conceive of a case where there can be a transfer of an immovable property by a person to himself, except indeed in case of a trust, to which we are adverting shortly.
As for example, there cannot be a sale of a property by its owner to himself; similarly there cannot be mortgage of an immovable property by owner or the mortgagor to himself. Similarly, there cannot be the lease of a property 'from its owner to himself’.
Next, an owner of an immovable property cannot exchange one property of his with another.
Lastly, except in cases of trust there cannot be a gift of an immovable property by an owner to himself. We have said so because transfers, connotes transfer of an immovable property by an owner to someone else. There cannot be a transfer to oneself because such a transfer is meaningless. A sale in one's own favour, a mortgage in one's own favour, a lease in one's own favour, an exchange in one's own favour and a gift in one's own favour do not bring about any change in the character or ownership of the property and therefore they are not transfers.
Therefore, there is no transfer at all in the properties so dealt with and all rights therein remain where they are and do not undergo any transfer or transformation whatsoever even after a transaction of sale,' mortgage, lease, gift or exchange has been executed by the owner in favour of himself.
It is, therefore, clear that, in order that a transaction may amount to a gift, there must be a donor under the deed and there must be a donee. One person cannot be the donor and the donee. He cannot in his capacity as the donor gift an immovable property to himself and accepts it as the donee. We say so because there is no transfer whatsoever in this case.
We are mindful of the definition of "transfer" given in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. We are dealing with it shortly. We are, however, clear in our minds that in order that a transaction may amount to a gift, there must be a transfer from one legal person to another legal person of an immovable property and that there must be two legal persons - one of whom is the donor, another of whom is the donee and that the donee has accepted the gift or that it has been accepted on his behalf.
Ex facie, therefore, when the appellant appointed himself as the sole trustee of the lands in question after settling them in trust for public benefit, he did not gift those properties firstly because there was no transfer of lands in question amounting to gift and also because there was no donee as he himself could not become the donor and- the donee and could not accept the gift on his own behalf.”

**