Bangalore District Court
Sri.Lokesh Reddy vs Smt.Neelamma on 27 November, 2021
KABC010208562012
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2021.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.7763/2012
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Lokesh Reddy,
S/o Late Srinivasa Reddy,
aged about 59 years,
Residing at No.99/3,
Sri. Rajarajeshwari Nilaya,
Kaggadasapura main road,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560093.
(By H.R.A.K., Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.Neelamma,
D/o Gowramma,
aged about 63 years,
Residing at No.808, S.F.S. Door
No.8, 1st main road,
Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore -
2
O.S.No. 7763/2012
560064.
2. Smt.Gowramma,
since dead by Lrs
2(1) Smt.Usha,
D/o Late Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at 29, 1st cross, 1st stage,
opp - sai medicals Okalipuram
Banglaore - 560021.
2(2) Smt.Sundanda,
D/o Late Srinivasa Reddy,
aged about 53 years,
2(3) Smt.Saroja,
W/o Suresh Reddy,
D/o Late Srinivasa Reddy,
aged about 45 years,
Respondents No.2(1) to 2(3) are
R/at No.6 Garvebhavi Palya,
Behind bright future English
School, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, Bengaluru - 560068.
2(4) Smt.Vimala,
W/o Ayappa Reddy,
D/o Srinivasa Reddy,
aged about 51 years,
R/at 442, 10th main road,
2nd cross, Dodda Banaswadi
1st block, Kalyananagar,
Bengaluru - 560043.
3
O.S.No. 7763/2012
2(5) Smt.Bhagya,
W/o Muni Reddy,
D/o Late Srinivasa Reddy,
aged about 49 years,
R/at Alanayakanahally,
Sarjapura hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
2(6) Smt.S.Anusuyamma,
W/o late Sunder Ram Reddy,
aged about 59 years,
2(7) Sri.S.Manjunath Reddy,
S/o late Sunder Ram Reddy,
aged about 43 years,
2(8) Smt. Chandrakala
D/o late Sunder Ram Reddy,
aged about 40 years,
Lrs of defendant No.2(6) to 2(8) are
R/at No.61, South End main road,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru - 560004.
(Defendant No.1 & defendant
No.2(1) M.N.G.R., Advocate,
defendant No. 2(2) M.L.G.,
Advocate, defendant No.2(3)
B.M.P., Advocate, defendant Nos.
2(4) & (5) P.M.R.K. Advocate,
defendant Nos. 2(6 & 7) &
defendant No.2(8) N.S., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 02-11-2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration &
4
O.S.No. 7763/2012
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 15-12-2018
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 27-11-2021
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
09 00 25
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is before the court for the relief of declaration to declare that the gift deed dated 23/2/2006 executed by Gowramma in favor of the defendant is void ab-initio and does not bind the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction to restraining the defendant, her agents, servants, assigns or any other person acting or claiming on her behalf from entering upon or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for cost and such other relieves.
5
O.S.No. 7763/2012
2. The plaintiff's case is that, the suit schedule property originally belonged to Srinivasa Reddy and his mother Smt. Tayamma. The said Srinivasa Reddy is the father of the plaintiff. Both Srinivasa Reddy and Tayamma sold the property in favor of Papanna by deed of sale dated 19/8/1961 which has been duly registered in the office of sub- registrar, Bangalore South. Even in the year 1961, there existed a Mangalore tiled house. The said Papanna sold the property in favor of the said Srinivasa Reddy, plaintiff and his elder brother Sundar Rama Reddy on 21/9/1974 by a deed of sale, which is duly registered in the office of sub-registrar. Ever since the sale in favor of the plaintiff, his brother and father, they are in possession of the schedule property. Sri Srinivasa Reddy the father of the plaintiff is dead. The plaintiff as a co-owner is entitled to bring this suit, which is settled law.
3. The defendant is the sister of plaintiff, the 6 O.S.No. 7763/2012 defendant and plaintiff are for not pulling on together. There are no rapport between the plaintiff and other family members.
4. Of late during the year 2012, the defendant has been coming near the property and has been trying to lay a claim on the basis of the alleged deed of gift dated 23/2/2006, said to have been executed by Gowramma, the mother of the parties, in respect of property bearing Khaneshumari No.365/33 and 365/34, Which forms part of the property owned by the plaintiff, his brother and late Srinivasa Reddy. Plaintiff has obtained a copy of the gift deed on 28/2/2012. He came to know of the alleged gift deed only on 20/2/2012 and the gift it is mentioned that the property belonged to the late Srinivasa Reddy. There is no recital in the said gift deed that the Srinivasa Reddy had gifted the property to his wife or that the property was bequeathed to them. Admittedly Srinivasa Reddy died intestate. A gift of an 7 O.S.No. 7763/2012 undivided share is prohibited under the law and the said gift is void ab-initio. The defendant does not get any right under the alleged gift in as much as the property has been sold by the Srinivasa Reddy and his mother Tayamma in favor of Papanna, who in turn sold the property in favor of the plaintiff, his brother Sundar Rama Reddy and late Srinivasa Reddy. The plaintiff has been in possession of the same. The schedule Property is in a dilapidated condition. The alleged gift is in respect of a smaller extent of the area. The khaneshumari number does not tally.
5. The defendant does not derive any right under the alleged gift and does not have any right, title and interest or possession in or over the schedule property. Defendant does not have any right at all as the donor did not have the right to execute the gift. The defendant has no right to come near the schedule property. For the last 10 months, she is asserting a claim of the property. The 8 O.S.No. 7763/2012 gift besides being void ab initio, is one without title. An undivided interest in the property cannot be gifted which is settled law, the properties gifted are properties of all the three. The defendant is creating a scene near the place. When the plaintiff approached the police they have directed the plaintiff to approach the civil court.
6. The plaintiff further submits that, Smt. Gowramma has executed gift deed dated 23/2/2006. Smt. Gowramma did not have any absolute right over the suit schedule property. The alleged gift deed executed by the Smt. Gowramma in favor of Smt. Neelamma is void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff.
7. The defendant has been coming to the spot from January 2012, who came with a number of supporters to the spot and 28/10/2012 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff. With great difficulty the plaintiff was able to resist the illegal action of the defendant and her supporters.
9
O.S.No. 7763/2012
8. That the of action for the suit arose on 28/2/2012 and 28/10/2012 and hence seeks to decree the suit.
9. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement to oppose the suit, in which it is contended that, the late Srinivasa Reddy, who is also the father of the 1 st defendant and husband of the 2nd defendant, acquired equal undivided interest jointly with plaintiff and his brother Sunderaramareddy, under a sale deed dated 21.9.1974 is false, late Srinivasa Reddy acquired absolute interest in the suit property under the said sale deed. Plaintiff and his brother Sundaramareddy were joined as nominal purchasers. It is denied that, upon the death of Srinivasa Reddy, the plaintiff acquired entitlement to sue the defendants, upon who such interest of the deceased devolved by succession, for the relief of injunction.
10. The defendants having succeeded to the 10 O.S.No. 7763/2012 interest of late Srinivasa Reddy are the co-owners of the suit property and enjoy every right to enter upon and to do all the such other acts. The interest of the 2 nd defendant being an acquisition, by devolution, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession is transferable under gift. The gift is valid.
11. It is true that, the 2nd defendant has executed a gift deed dated 23.2.2006 in respect of 4980 square feet out of the suit property to the favor of 1st defendant.
12. There is no cause of action for the suit
13. The suit is not properly valued, the court fee paid is insufficient.
14. The statement as to nil pendency of legal proceedings made in paragraph No.9 is denied as false. O.S.No.4203/1992 between the 1 st defendant and other co-owners including the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant in respect of several items of immovable property including the suit property is pending before the court. 11
O.S.No. 7763/2012
15. The plaintiff is not entitled for reliefs
16. That, late Srinivasa Reddy acquired the absolute interest in the suit schedule property under the sale deed dated 21.9.1974. Plaintiff and his brother namely Sunderaramreddy were the nominal purchasers. The consideration was paid provided by Srinivasareddy alone. Srinivasareddy died intestate and the suit property devolved equally on the plaintiff, defendants and other 6 daughters. All the persons are co-owners and the suit by one co-owner against other co-owners for the relief of injunction is not maintainable. O.S.4203/92 is filed by 1st defendant against the plaintiff, 2 nd defendant, 6 other sisters and brother Sundararamareddy for partition and separate possession of six items of immovable property, including the suit property on a claim that all the properties were self-acquired by late Srinivasareddy and upon his death devolved upon equally on the parties of that suit. The plaintiff herein as 12 O.S.No. 7763/2012 the 9th defendant thereunder has contended in that suit that all the items of property, including the suit property herein, were the ancestral joint family properties of late Srinivasareddy. Issues involving all questions of fact and law arising from such contentions are already framed in that suit. The trial of present suit directly and substantially involving same rival contentions and giving rise to same issues is barred under Section 10 of the code of civil procedure.
With the above contentions defendant No.1 seeks to dismiss the suit.
17. Defendant No.2 has also filed the written statement by denying and disputing the plaint averments to oppose the suit, and has contended that, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or facts of the case.
18. The suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for the reasons of suppresio vari and 13 O.S.No. 7763/2012 suggestion falsi, since the plaintiff has suppressed the true material facts and has suggested the false facts before this Hon'ble Court so as to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and that apart the entire suit averments are terminable in exactitudes.
19. The defendants having succeeded to the interest of the late Srinivasa Reddy and they are the co- owners of the suit schedule property and enjoy every right to enter upon and to do all such other acts. The interest of this defendant being an acquisition, by devolution, under Section 8 of the Hindu succession is transferable under gift. The gift deed is a valid deed, executed by this defendant in favor of the first defendant.
20. The suit is not properly valued i.e., the suit has been undervalued and the method adopted by the plaintiff to value the suit is not proper and not in accordance with the law.
21. That late Srinivasa Reddy has acquired the 14 O.S.No. 7763/2012 absolute right title and interest over the suit schedule property under the sale deed dated 21.09.1974. That the plaintiff and his brother namely Sunder Rama Reddy were nominal purchasers and they have not paid the sale consideration to the vendor. The entire sale consideration was paid by Srinivasareddy alone. The said Srinivasa Reddy died intestate and the suit property devolved equally on the plaintiffs, defendants and other joint family members. All the family members are co-owners and suit by one of the co-owner against the other co- owner for the relief of declaration and injunction is not maintainable either on law or facts. The first defendant has filed the suit in O.S.No.4203/1992 for the relief of partition and separate possession of her share against the plaintiff and other joint family members. The said suit is pending for consideration and all the joint family properties were self acquired properties of late Srinivasa Reddy and this defendant. After the death of Srinivasa 15 O.S.No. 7763/2012 Reddy all his legal heirs are entitled for equal share. The plaintiff herein as the 9th defendant in O.S.4203/1992, the plaintiff contended that, all the suit schedule properties including this suit schedule property were the ancestral and joint family properties.
22. That the present claim of the plaintiff is time barred claim, since the plaintiff is trying to establish his right after lapse of several years, as such on the ground of delay and latches, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
23. The very act of the plaintiff in preferring the present suit at this belated stage itself clearly substantiates that this suit has been preferred only to gain wrongfully, as such on the count of delay and latches, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
With the above contentions the defendant No.2 seeks to dismiss the suit.
24. On the basis of the pleading the following 16 O.S.No. 7763/2012 issues are framed,
1) Does the plaintiff prove that, he was in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?
2) Does the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are interfering in his possession over the same?
3) Does the plaintiff proves that, the gift deed dated 23.02.2006 executed by Gowramma in favor of Neelamma is void ab initio for the reasons stated in the plaint?
4) Does the plaintiff proves that, suit is properly valued and court fee paid on the same is sufficient?
5) Does the plaintiff proves that, this suit is in time?
6) What order or decree?
25. To substantiate plaint averment plaintiff
himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to 4 documents are marked. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of sale deed dated 17 O.S.No. 7763/2012 21-09-1974, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 09-08-1961, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of gift deed dated 23- 02-2006. Ex.P.4 is certified copy of deposition.
26. From defendant side defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to 7 documents are marked. Ex.D.1 is certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No. 4203/1992, Ex.D.2 is certified copy of the written statement in O.S.No. 4203/1992, Ex.D.3 is certified copy of Addl. W/s in O.S.No. 4203/1992, Ex.D.4 is certified copy of W/s filed by LR of 8 th defendant, Ex.D.5 is certified copy of additional W/s filed by 9 th defendant, Ex.D.6 is certified copy of W/s filed by 9 th defendant, Ex.D.7 is original gift deed dated 23-02-2006.
27. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
28. L/c for plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions;
1. 2013(3) SCC PAGE 182
2. 2010(2) SCC PAGE 194 18 O.S.No. 7763/2012
3. 2016(2) MLJ PAGE 14
4. AIR 2000 SC 1099
5. AIR 1993 KERALA 134
6. AIR 1981 NOC 75(ALL)
7. AIR 1977 SC 1599
8. AIR 1970 MAD 113
9. AIR 1964 SC 1385 10 AIR 1954 SC 340
11. ILR 1999 KAR 3129
29. L/c for defendant has relied upon the decision reported in 2019 (6) SCC 82 in Jagadish Prasad Patel Vs Shivnath and Others.
30. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: In the Affirmative Issue No.4: In the Affirmative Issue No.5: In the Affirmative Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:-19
O.S.No. 7763/2012 REASONS
31. ISSUE No.1:- The plaintiff is before the court for the relief of declaration to declare the gift deed dated 23.2.2006 executed by the Gowramma in favor of the defendant Smt Neelamma is void ab intio and does not bind the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and such other reliefs.
32. The plaintiff sought the said reliefs on the ground that the suit property originally belonged to Srinivasareddy and Smt Tayamma and they sold the same in favor of one Mr. Papanna under the registered sale deed dated 9.8.1961 and thereafter the very same Papanna has reconveyed the same property in favor of Srinivasareddy, sundara rama reddy and himself under the registered sale deed 21.9.1974. his father Srinivasa reddy died intestate and after that he continued the 20 O.S.No. 7763/2012 possession and Smt Gowramma has no absolute right to execute the gift deed. And hence seek to decree the suit.
33. On the other hand the defendant contends that the suit property is the absolute property of the Srinivasareddy, and Sundararamareddy and plaintiffs are only name lenders and they have not paid any consideration amount and hence seeks to dismiss the suit.
34. On perusal of the sale deed dated 21.9.1974 which is produced at Ex.P.1, it appears that the suit property is sold by Mr. Papanna to Srinivasareddy, and his two sons Sundara rama reddy and Lokesh. In the said document it is clearly mentioned that, 'ಶಶಶ ಸನ ಸಸವರದ ವವಬಬಬನನರ ಎಪಪತತನಸಲಲನಬ ಇಸವ ಸಬಪಪವಬರ ಮಸಹಬಶ ಇಪಪತಬನತವದರಲನಲ ಬಬವಗಳಳರರ ದಕಣ ತಸಲನಲಕರ ಬಬಶಗನರರ ಹಬನಶಬಳ ಹಬನವಗಸವದಶ ದಸಖಲಬ ಗಸರರವಬ ಬಸವ ಪಸಳಳ ದಲಲ ವಸಸವರರವ ಲಬಶಟ ಕಸವಬಶರಪಪನವರ ಮಗ ಶಶಶ ಕಬ. ಶಶಶನವಸಸ ರಬಡಡ ಮತರತ ಈತನ ಮಕಲಳಸದ ಸರವದರಸವ ರಬಡಡ ಮತರತ ಲಬನಶಕಬಶಶ ರಬಡಡಯವರಗನ ಸಹಸ ಬಬವಗಳಳರರ ದಕಣ 21 O.S.No. 7763/2012 ತಸಲನಲಕರ ಬಬಶಗನರರ ಹಬನಶಬಳ ಕಬನಶರಮವಗಲದಲಲ ವಸಸವಸಗರರವ ಚಕಲಮಲಲಪಪನವರ ಮಗ ಪಸಪಣಣನಸದ ನಸನರ ನನನ ಖರದರದ ರಸಜಯವದ ವಪಪ ಬರಬಸಕಬನಟಪ ಸಸರಸಸತರತ. ಗಸಶಮ ಠಸಣದಲಲ ನವಬಶಶನ ಮತರತ ಮನಬಯ ಶರದದ ಕಶಮ ಪತಶ ಕಶಮವಬನಬವದರಬ ನಸನರ ಈ ಕಬಳಕವಡ ಸಸತತನರನ ನಮಮವದಲಬಶ ಕಶಯಕಬಲ ಪಡಬದರ ಬಬವಗಳಳರರ ದಕಣ ತಸಲರಲ ಸಬ ರಜಸಸಸರ ರವರ ಆಪಶಸನಲಲ ............ ನವಬರಸಗ ೯.೮.೬೧ ರಲರಲ ರಜಸಸಪಸಗರರವ ಕಶಯ ಪತಶದ ಮನಲಲ ನನನ ಸಸಸದಶನಸನರಭಕಬಲ ಬವದರ ನನನ ಹಕರಲದಸರಗಬ ವಳಪಟಪ ಸಸತತನರನ ನಮಗಬಶನಬ ವಸಪಸ ಕಶಯಕಬಲ ಕಬನಡರವವದಸಗ ಹಬಶಳಬರಬಸಕಬನಟಪ ಕರಸರರ ಅನರಸರಸ ಈ ದನ ಕಬಳಕವಡ ಷಡಬನಳಲ ಸಸತತನರನ ನಮಗಬಶನಬಶ ............... ' From this it is clear that the property purchased by the Papanna under the sale deed dated 9.8.1961, which is produced at Ex.P.2 is re-conveyed to the Srinivasareddy and his two sons, ie Sundararamareddy and Lokesh Reddy- plaintiff herein. in the Ex.P.2 it is clearly mentioned that the suit property is ancestral property of the Srinivsareddy. Ex.P.2 is jointly executed by the Srinivasareddy and his mother Smt Tayamma in favor of Sri Papanna. From Ex.P.1 and 2 it is very much 22 O.S.No. 7763/2012 clear that the suit property is the ancestral property of Srinivasareddy, who is the father of the plaintiff and sundararamareddy. It is undisputed fact that the father of the plaintiff Sri Srinivasareddy died intestate. When the sale deed is executed in favor of the plaintiff also, definitely he must in the possession of the same, because there is no document is forthcoming that his possession is disturbed. Hence I am the opinion that the plaintiff has proved Issue No.1, hence the same is answered in affirmative.
35. Issue No.2:- As it is already noticed that the suit property is jointly sold in favor of Srinivasareddy and two his sons, i.e., Sundararamreddy and Lokesh reddy- the plaintiff herein by the Papanna under the registered sale deed dated 21.9.1974. from Ex.P.1 and 2 it is clear that the suit property is the ancestral property. the defendant No.1 is claiming the right, title, interest, possession over the suit property on the basis of the gift 23 O.S.No. 7763/2012 deed dated 23.2.2006 stated to have been executed by Smt Gowramma- the mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1. as it is already the sale deed is in the name of the plaintiff also, then under such circumstances he has to be treated as one of the owner of the suit property. it is undisputed fact that the Srinivasareddy died intestate. Smt Gowramma cannot get absolute right over the suit property to execute the gift deed in favor of the defendant No.1. then the gift deed becomes void and under the void gift deed claiming the right, title, possession over the suit property is nothing but interference, hence the issue No.2 is held in affirmative.
36. Issue No.3:- That the suit property is purchased by the Srinivasareddy and his two sons by name Sundararamreddy and Lokesh reddy ie plaintiff under the sale deed dated 21.9.1974 as per Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.2 sale deed it is mentioned that the said property is ancestral property. it is admitted fact that 24 O.S.No. 7763/2012 Srinivasareddy-the father of the plaintiff died intestate and Smt Gowramma W/o Srinivasareddy has no independent right to execute the gift deed, because the plaintiff and his brother Sundararamreddy are also owners as per the sale deed. When the Gowramma did not get absolute right over the suit property she cannot gift the suit property independently. Gift deed executed by Smt Gowramma without having any right definitely is void ab initio. Hence the issue No.3 is held in affirmative.
37. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare the gift deed is void ab initio and not binding on him and for permanent injunction. Court fee of Rs 50/-is paid by valuing the suit under section 24 (d) and section 26 (c) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.
38. It is to be seen from the sale deed dated 21.9.1974 as per Ex.P.1 the plaintiff is also one of the purchaser of the suit property along with his father. 25
O.S.No. 7763/2012 Naturally he must in the possession of the suit property. and it also admitted fact the he is not the signatory to the gift deed dated 23.2.2006, then under such circumstances the court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. The learned counsel for the defendant drawn the attention of the court regarding the objection raised by the office at the inception that the court fee has to be paid under section 38 of the KCF & SV Act, but as the plaintiff is not the signatory to the said gift deed, the same cannot be considered. And hence the issue No.4 is held in affirmative.
39. Issue No.5:- The plaintiff has shown the cause of action date is on 28.10.2012. it is to be seen that the plaintiff is also one of the purchaser of the suit schedule property as per the sale deed produced at Ex.P.1. himself and his brother Sundararam reddy have not sold or transferred their rights. And it is also not disputed that the father of the plaintiff 26 O.S.No. 7763/2012 Mr.K.Srinivasareddy died intestate. And hence execution of the gift deed by Smt Gowramma having no title is nothing but creation of the document in fraudulent manner and hence the cause of action is continuous one, and hence the suit is within the limitation. Hence the issue is answered in affirmative.
40. L/c for plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions;
1. 2013(3) SCC PAGE 182 This decision is not applicable to the facts on hand, since the said decision is of lease.
2. 2010(2) SCC PAGE 194 This decision is not applicable to the facts on hand, since it is regarding revenue entry.
3. 2016(2) MLJ PAGE 14 This decision is not applicable to the facts on hand, since the said decision is on probate.
4. AIR 2000 SC 1099 27 O.S.No. 7763/2012 This decision is not applicable to the facts on hand, since in the cited decision the possession is sought for, but in this case it is the declaration and injunction.
5. AIR 1993 KERALA 134 This decision is not applicable to the facts on hand, since it is with respect to agreement of sale and present suit is for declaration and enjoyment.
6. AIR 1981 NOC 75(ALL) This is applicable to the facts on hand, since in the cited decision also it is held gift of undivided share in the immovable property of joint family is invalid. In the present suit also Smt. Gowramma has executed the gift deed in respect of joint family property which is not partitioned.
7. AIR 1977 SC 1599 This decision is not applicable to the facts on hand, since the same is under the rent act.
8. AIR 1970 MAD 113 28 O.S.No. 7763/2012 It is partly applicable to the facts on hand, since in the said decision it is held gift of undivided share in the joint family property is void.
9. AIR 1964 SC 1385 It is not applicable to the facts on hand, since it is in respect to sale of joint family property by the Kartha of the family without consulting the other coparcener. 10 AIR 1954 SC 340 It is also not applicable to the facts on hand, because it is in respect of decree passed without jurisdiction.
11. ILR 1999 KAR 3129 It is applicable to the facts on hand, since it is clearly held in the cited decision that coparcener cannot make and gift of coparcenery property, not even of his own interest in the property. Such gift deeds are void ab- initio in their entirety.
41. L/c for defendant has relied upon the decision 29 O.S.No. 7763/2012 reported in 2019 (6) SCC 82 in Jagadish Prasad Patel Vs Shivnath and Others.
The said decision is applicable to the facts on hand, it is established proposition of law that facts admitted need not be proved. But the same is not applicable to the case on hand. Since the present suit is question of gift deed by the Gowramma wife of Srinivasa Reddy after the death of Srinivasa Reddy when the sale deed is in the name of Srinivasa Reddy and his sons.
42. Issue No.6:- For the above reasons I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly, with costs, It is hereby declared that the gift deed dated 23.2.2006 executed by the Gowramma in favor of Smt Neelamma, registered before the senior Sub- registrar, Bangalore south taluk as per document 30 O.S.No. 7763/2012 No.BNG(U)-BLR(S)/17173/2005-06 is void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff.
Acting under Section 31(2) of Specific relief Act, Office is directed to send the copy of this judgment and decree along with certified copy of the Ex.D.7 to above mentioned sub-registrar office to make necessary endorsement in the concerned register.
Relief of permanent injunction is refused as the defendants are also legal heirs of deceased K.Srinivasareddy.
Office is directed to draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 27 th day of November, 2021.) ( SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY 31 O.S.No. 7763/2012 SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No. 365/33 and 365/34, Assessment No. 37/94 situated at Garve Bhavi Palya, Hongasandra Dhakle, Begur hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in all measuring East to West:
131 feet and North to South : 52 feet totally measuring 6812 sq.ft. with a Mangalore Tiled House measuring East to West: 45 feet and North to South : 48 feet and vacant site gifted to Smt.Neelamma measuring East to West: 60 feet and North to South: 83 feet and bounded on the;
East by: Property belongs to Lokesh Reddy West by: Tayappa's land North by: Abbaiah Reddy's land South by: Remaining land of the same property.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Lokesh Reddy 32 O.S.No. 7763/2012
(b) Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Neelamma II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of sale deed dated 21-09-1974 Ex.P.2: Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-08-1961 Ex.P.3: Certified copy of gift deed dated 23-02-2006 Ex.P.4: Certified copy of deposition
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1: Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No. 4203/1992 Ex.D.2: Certified copy of the written statement in O.S.No. 4203/1992 Ex.D.3: Certified copy of Addl. W/s in O.S.No. 4203/1992 Ex.D.4: Certified copy of W/s filed by LR of 8th defendant Ex.D.5: Certified copy of additional W/s filed by 9th defendant 33 O.S.No. 7763/2012 Ex.D.6: Certified copy of W/s filed by 9 th defendant Ex.D.7: Original gift deed dated 23-02-2006 XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.