Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gujju Poll Venkata Ramesh vs Gujju Satya Gowri Gowri Padmavathi on 16 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.418 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, „C.P.C.'), is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 24.03.2014 in O.S. No.15 of 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.C.s & S.T.s (P.O.A.) Act-cum-X Additional District Judge& Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, 'the trial court').
2. Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No.15 of 2005 seeking cancellation of registered gift deed dated 28.04.2003 (document No.2515 of 2003) and for consequent delivery of possession of „B‟ schedule building with costs.
3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The plaint 'A' schedule property is shown as a Registered Gift Deed dated 28.04.2003 allegedly executed by Plaintiff in favour of Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the suit, seeking relief of cancelling the plaint 'A' schedule document as void and consequential relief for delivering the plaint 'B' schedule property to the Plaintiff. It is the Plaintiff's case that she purchased plaint 'B' schedule property in her name, and the Plaintiff was subjected to fear of arrest by Police and perpetrated fraud, undue 2 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 influence and coercion on her and obtained plaint 'A' schedule document relating to plaint 'B' schedule property.
5. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
(a) The Plaintiff, the Defendant's second wife, married him on October 20, 1985. The Defendant's first wife, Padmavathi (who is also the Plaintiff's sister), had passed away, leaving two children. To protect their interests, the Plaintiff married the Defendant. The Defendant had fostered a child named Harikumar since 1998 due to not having male heirs. The Defendant is addicted to bad vices and spends his time out of the house.
The Plaintiff actively participated in the education and performances of the marriages of two girl children and foster Son Hari Kumar.
(b) The Plaintiff's father retained the "Pasupukumkuma" money meant for Padmavathi (his elder daughter), multiplied it through different sources, and gave it to the Plaintiff to purchase a house. The Plaintiff purchased the plaint „B‟ schedule property on March 30, 1996. From then on, Defendant harassed Plaintiff for minor domestic issues, leading to Plaintiff and her daughter being forced out of the house in 2000. They began living in Vijayawada with the help of the Plaintiff's father, while the Defendant stayed in the plaint „B‟ schedule house. Defendant, by exercising fraud, undue influence and coercion on Plaintiff, obtained plaint 'A' schedule property under gift deed dated 28.04.2003. Defendant 3 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 compelled Plaintiff in November 2004 for a divorce by mutual consent and, subsequently, began proposing the sale of plaint 'B' schedule property, whereas Plaintiff had entertained a doubt. On 28.01.2005, after obtaining a certified copy of the document, Plaintiff learned of the fraud played by Defendant.
6. Defendant filed a written statement (subsequently amended), refuted the plaint averments and admitted his 2nd marriage with the Plaintiff and fostering Harikumar and denied the Plaintiff‟s purchase of plaint 'B' schedule property and contended that Plaintiff engaging an illicit relationship with Sri Harikumar, who had divorced his wife Kanyakumari by mutual consent. According to the Defendant, the elders advised the Plaintiff to stay in Vijayawada, but she continued her relationship with Sriharikumar by sending her daughter to Defendant; the elders advised both parties to file a divorce petition for mutual consent, resulting in Lok Adalat Award vide O.P. No.238 of 2004 on 16.09.2004. Defendant sustained a loss of Rs.7,00,000/- due to Plaintiff's immoral activities; Defendant purchased 'B' schedule property in the name of Plaintiff with his amounts; Plaintiff had no financial capacity to purchase 'B' schedule property.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek cancellation of plaint - A schedule document having been obtained by Defendant by playing fraud and misrepresentation on her? 4
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to redeliver of possession of plaint
- B schedule property and mesne profits?
(3) Whether Defendant purchased the plaint schedule property in the name of Plaintiff with his own money and later got it reconveyed in his name as pleaded by Defendant?
(4) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? (5) To what relief?
8. During the trial, on behalf of the Plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A.1. On behalf of the Defendant, D.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.9 and Exs.X.1 and X.2.
9. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs and the gift deed dated 28.04.2003 executed by Plaintiff in favour of Defendant is declared as null and void; the Defendant shall deliver possession of plaint 'B' schedule within three months from the date of Judgment; mesne profits shall be decided on a separate application filed by Plaintiff.
10. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and have reviewed the Judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court. I have also re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, including the deposition of relevant witnesses examined by both sides.
11. M/s.Indus Law Firm, representing the appellant/defendant, contends that there is insufficient pleading to substantiate the claim of fraud alleged by the Plaintiff. It is also pointed out the absence of prior notice before filing the suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated April 5 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 28, 2003, executed by Plaintiff in favour of Defendant. The suit was filed two years after the document, casting doubt on the Plaintiff's credibility. It is further contended that, apart from the self-serving statements of PWs.1 and 2, there is a lack of corroborative documentary evidence to support the allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence in the execution of Ex.A.1. It further argued that the mere dismissal of the O.P. for divorce should not be a basis for seeking the cancellation of the gift deed. It further asserted that the trial court erred in disregarding the evidence of DWs.1 to 7, who testified about the execution of the document and its registration. The trial court's findings regarding the 'B' schedule property and the payment of permanent alimony were incorrect and lacked cogent reasoning.
12. Per contra, Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff, argued that the trial Court appreciated the case facts and reached a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any interference.
13. Concerning the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination:
1) Is the trial Court justified in holding that the gift deed dated 28.04.2003 executed by Plaintiff in favour of Defendant is null and void?6
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014
2) Is the trial Court justified in holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to re-delivery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property?
3) Does the trial Court judgment need any interference? POINT NOs.1 & 2:
14. As seen from the record, the following facts are either admitted or undisputed:
(a) Plaintiff is the Defendant's 2nd wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 20.10.1985. The Defendant's 1st wife, namely, Padmavathi, who is the Plaintiff‟s sister, had expired, leaving behind two girl children. To safeguard the interest of girl children, Plaintiff married Defendant. One Sri Hari Kumar was fostered by the Defendant from 1998, as the Defendant was not blessed with male issues. Prathima is the girl child who was blessed to the Plaintiff and Defendant.
(b) The plaint schedule property is a two-storied building covered by D.No.6/234 situated in Municipal Ward No.6, Chandasathram Street, Rajahmundry.
15. According to Plaintiff, the plaint 'B' schedule property was purchased by her with the funds of Padmavathi, and it was multiplied over time in the hands of Plaintiff's father. Admittedly, the schedule property stands in the Plaintiff. It is the Defendant's case that he purchased the plaint schedule property in the name of Plaintiff with his 7 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 own money by depositing the amount from his account to the Plaintiff's savings account, and the Plaintiff's parents have not provided any financial support to purchase the plaint schedule property. Both parties have let in evidence to establish their respective stands. The trial Court has framed issue No.3 as follows:
Whether Defendant purchased the plaint schedule property in the name of Plaintiff with his own money and later got it reconveyed in his name as pleaded by Defendant?
16. As seen from the evidence adduced, PW.1 (Plaintiff) admitted that her father was working as a Lower Division Clerk, and except for his salary, he does not have any other source of income. She admitted that she did not file any document showing that her father multiplied her sister's Pasupu Kumkuma and paid her to purchase the schedule property.
17. The Plaintiff‟s father (Kolluri Viswanadham), PW.2, testified that he has no document to show that he arranged the money to purchase a property in the name of PW.1. He also admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that he gave amount towards Pasupu Kumkuma to Padmavathi at the time of her marriage. On the other hand, Defendant examined PW.2's wife, Kolluri Kanakam, as DW.5, who supported the Defendant's case. Her testimony shows that she or her husband did not finance the Plaintiff to purchase the plaint schedule property. The trial Court discarded DW.5's evidence by holding that, 8 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 admittedly, she had enmity with the PW.2 and, consequently, even against the PW.1.
18. To support his case, the Defendant examined DW.7 (NalamPattabhi Rama Rao) and relied on Ex.X.1 (a Xerox copy of the acknowledgement of income tax returns for the assessment year 1996-97) and Ex.X.2 (a Xerox copy of the acknowledgement of income tax returns for the assessment year 1997-98). After providing reasons, the trial court noted that DW.7's testimony, along with the self-serving documents (Exs.X.1 and X.2), could not be considered reliable. The trial court concluded, upon analyzing the evidence, that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her father contributed funds from the PasupuKumkuma amount given to Padmavathi and its subsequent multiplication. Upon reviewing the evidence, this Court concurs with the trial court's findings that Plaintiff did not establish that the 'B' schedule property was purchased in her name with the funds derived from the contribution made to Padmavathi at the time of her marriage.
19. It's noteworthy that Defendant has not filed a suit to declare his title over the scheduled property despite purchasing it in Plaintiff's name and obtaining a gift deed from her. This lack of action implies that the Defendant does not dispute the Plaintiff's title over the property. Having obtained the gift deed from Plaintiff, it might be inappropriate for Defendant to challenge her ownership now.
9
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014
20. The Plaintiff's stand is that the Defendant used fraud, coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation to obtain the gift deed from her. The content of Ex.A.1 indicates that the Plaintiff, out of love and affection, voluntarily gifted a property worth Rs.12,80,500/- to her husband on 28.04.2003. The terms of the gift deed grant the Defendant absolute rights to enjoy the property by paying municipal taxes. With the admission by Plaintiff of executing the gift deed in favour of her husband, the burden naturally falls upon her to prove that Defendant engaged in fraud, coercion, and undue influence to obtain Ex.A.1.
21. Now, it is to be considered, whether the gift deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of her husband is voluntary or vitiated by coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation?
22. In a decision reported in Sonia Bhatia vs State of U.P. and others1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that:
"14. To begin with, it may be necessary to dwell on the concept of gift as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act and as defined in various legal dictionaries and books. To start with, BLACK'S LAW DICTIO- NARY (Fourth Edition) defines gift thus:
―A voluntary transfer of personal property without consideration. A parting by owner with property without pecuniary consideration. A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another, made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money.‖ A similar definition has been given in WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTER- NATIONAL DICTIONARY (Unabridged), where the author defines gift thus:1
1981 (2) SCC 585 10 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 ―Something that is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a voluntary transfer of real or personal property without any consideration or without a valuable consideration -- distin- guished from sale.
Volume 18 of WORDS AND PHRASES (Permanent Edition) defines gift thus:
―A ‗gift' is a voluntary transfer of property without compensation or any consideration. A ‗gift' means a voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without consideration or compensation.‖ In HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (Third Edition, Volume 18), while detailing the nature and kinds of gifts, the following statement is made:
―A gift inter vivos (a) may be defined shortly as the transfer of any property from one person to another gratuitously. Gifts then, or grants, which are the eighth method of transferring personal property, are thus to be distinguished from each other, that gifts are always gratuitous, grants are upon some consideration or equivalent.
15. Thus, according to Lord Halsbury's statement, the essential distinction between a gift and a grant is that whereas a gift is absolutely gratuitous, the grant is based on some consideration or equivalent. Simi-
larly, in Volume 38 of CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, it has been clearly stated that a gift is a transfer without consideration and in this connection while defining the nature and character of a gift, the author states as fol- lows:
―A gift is commonly defined as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another, without any consideration or compensation therefor. Any piece of property which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation or consideration. A gift is a gratuity, and an act of generosity, and not only does not require a consideration, but there can be none; if there is a consideration for the transaction it is not a gift.‖ X
20. xxx Under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, the gift is defined thus:11
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 ―‗Gift' is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on be- half of the donee.
Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.‖
21. Thus, Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly post-
ulates that a gift must have two essential characteristics-- (1) that it must be made voluntarily, and (2) that it should be without considera- tion. This is apart from the other ingredients like acceptance, etc. Against the background of these facts and the undisputed position of law, the words "transfer for adequate consideration" used in clause (b) of the pro- viso clearly and expressly exclude a transaction which is in the nature of a gift and which is without consideration. Love and affection, etc., may be motive for making a gift but is not a consideration in the legal sense of the term.‖
23. In every gift, the donor has a particular motive or objective or a reason to part with his property in favour of the donee, the reason being, in some cases, love and affection, where the gift is in favour of a relation or friend or spiritual benefit in other cases, but this will be the immediate motive for making the gift and cannot be regarded as a consideration for the gift because the very concept of gift is based on a purely gratuitous consideration.
24. To appreciate the pleadings, it may be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Contract Act, i.e., Sections 14, 15 & 16, to the extent ne- cessary.
12
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014
(i) Section 14 of the Contract Act defines as to what is free consent. This Section provides that consent is said to be free when it is not caused by:
(i) Coercion, as defined in Section 15, or
(ii) Undue influence, as defined in section 16, or.....
Section 14 goes on to say that consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such "coercion" or "undue influence", as the case may be.
(ii) Section 15 of the Contract Act defines. "coercion" to mean committing or threatening to commit an act forbidden by the Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') or unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property to the prejudice of any person whatever with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
(iii) Similarly, Section 16 of the Contract Act defines "undue influence". A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where relations Subsisting between parties are such that one of the parties is in position to "dominate the will" of the other and uses that position to obtain an "unfair advantage" over the other, Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 gives instances where a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another, that is, (i) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; and (ii) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.
13
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014
25. As noticed hereinabove, Section 19 of the Contract Act provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misre- presentation, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. Similarly, Section 19A provides when consent to an agreement is caused by "undue influence", the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained."
26. As per PW.1's testimony, the Defendant harassed her for minor domestic issues, leading to her and her daughter being forced out of the house in 2000. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders, Defendant brought them back to the 'B' schedule property, and they started living together.
27. In the Plaintiff's case, Defendant informed her to transfer the 'B' schedule property to their unmarried daughter, Prathima. He obtained her signature, claiming it was needed for purchasing stamps. There were admitted disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant when executing Ex.A.1, the gift deed. Plaintiff asserted that the disputes started in 2000, while Defendant (DW.1) claimed they arose after their daughter's marriage in March 2002. Both DW.1 and PW.1 filed O.P. No.238 of 2004, seeking divorce by mutual consent. DW.1 acknowledged the truthfulness of the contents of Ex.B.1 (certified copy of the petition), confirming that disputes had started in 2000, leading to PW.1 residing separately in Vijayawada.
28. The trial court highlighted specific admissions made by DW.1 in cross-examination at para No.21. DW.1 admitted to disputes and living 14 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 together until May 2003. He stated that when disputes arose, their terms became harsh, and they had no communication, even by the date of the panchayat held before the elders. The record establishes that the disputes arose due to the Defendant's grievance that PW.1 developed an illicit relationship with their fostered Son, Sri Hari Kumar, causing harm to his family life with Kanya Kumari. The elders advised PW.1 to stay in Vijayawada, where she set up residency on June 5, 2003. Sri Hari Kumar and Kanya Kumari filed a mutual consent divorce petition (O.P. No.105 of 2003), settled in a Lok Adalat on July 5, 2003.
29. The Defendant asserts that even after moving to Vijayawada, PW.1 continued her relationship with Sri Hari Kumar. The Plaintiff sent her daughter, Prathima, to Rajahmundry in May 2004. Disputes arose again, and elders advised filing a mutual consent divorce petition. They set the permanent alimony at Rs.1,00,000/-; on September 16, 2004, PW.1 received the cash. The Defendant and Plaintiff then filed O.P. No.238 of 2004. There is no significant dispute regarding the divorce petition, and there is no mention of the reconveyance of the scheduled property in the Lok Adalat Award in O.P. No.238 of 2004. The contents of the Ex.B.3 Award are referred to for clarity.
(i) The 1st Petitioner agreed to give Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2nd Petitioner towards permanent alimony, and the 2nd Petitioner agreed to receive the same.
(ii) The 2nd Petitioner received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Banker Cheque bearing No.246183, 246184, 246185 dt.05.05.2003 drawn on City Union Bank Limited, 15 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 Rajahmundry from the 1st Petitioner towards permanent alimony.
(iii) The marriage between the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner is hereby dissolved by granting decree with mutual consent U./sec.13B of H.M.Act.
(iv) The 2nd Petitioner agreed not to claim any future maintenance from the 1st Petitioner and will not file any criminal cases against each other.
30. Given the clear recitals of the Ex.B.3 Award, this Court has no hesitation in holding that DW.1's evidence regarding the settlement of the matter before the elders cannot be accepted. Though Defendant has not placed the material to establish illicit intimacy of Plaintiff with their fostered Son, Defendant is able to throw some doubt about conduct of Plaintiff and her fostered Son.
31. At this point, it is crucial to mention DW.6, Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupati, who presented Ex.B.8, an attested copy of Ex.B.5 (true copy of a sale deed dated 05.09.2007) where Sri Hari Kumar was shown as the Plaintiff's husband. However, DW.6 couldn't confirm who was present during the execution and registration of Exs.B.5 and B.8. When such a document is presented; it becomes the Plaintiff's responsibility to clarify her stance on the details of the sale deeds. The Plaintiff does not dispute that the property covered under Ex.B.8 belongs to her. However, as per Ex.B.1, permanent alimony of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The material on record clearly indicates severe disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant on the execution date of Ex.A.1 on 28.04.2003. DW.1's admission and other evidence suggest there was no 16 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 love and affection between them at the time of Ex.A.1. Considering these circumstances; the trial court rightly posed a question whether any wife would agree to Rs.1,00,000/- as permanent alimony by gifting property worth Rs.13,00,000/- to her husband.
32. Plaintiff contends that the original Ex.A.1 document's contents were not read to her, and the document was obtained under the misrepresentation that she was executing a settlement deed for her daughter, Prathima. DW.1 adduced evidence to show that the matter was discussed with the elders, and at their advice, PW.1 executed a gift deed in favour of the Defendant. DW.2 (K. Satyanarayana Murthy, DW.1‟s brother- in-law) claimed ignorance about the contents and execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2. DW.3 (K. Tata Rao, DW.1‟s brother-in-law) stated that Ex.A.1 was made according to the elders' verdict but couldn't provide the specifics of the verdict. The trial court rightly noted that DW.3 didn't mention in his testimony that the contents of Ex.A.1 were read over and explained to PW.1. DW.4 (M. Raja Babu) talked about the registration of Ex.A.1 but had no personal information about its execution. The trial court correctly observed that DW.4's evidence is of no assistance to Defendant since he spoke based on the record that the recitals of Ex.A.1 were indeed read over and explained to Plaintiff before the execution and registration.
33. In Duddumpuri Venkatarayudu vs Duddumpudi Rajagopal2, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: 2
2012 S.C.C. OnLine A.P. 11 17 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 "31. It, therefore, emerges that the person can be said to have ex-
ecuted the document only when he knows the contents thereof and sub- scribes to his signature or puts his thumb impression.
32. In the instant case, PW.1 stated in unequivocal terms that she was not aware of the contents of Ex.A.2. Though her signature upon it was not disputed, she cannot be said to have executed the document once she was ignorant about the contents. Putting the signature on a document is not an empty formality. That act must connote the consent of the signatory to abide by the obligations which arise under the document, or at least, the knowledge thereof.
33. Free will and being in a position to take an independent decision of sine qua non for an individual to bring into existence a valid contract. Since the transaction of a gift is the one not suggested by any consideration, the satisfaction of these two aspects is required to be much more. When the party was not in a position to take any decision and was in serious distress, any commitment procured from such person is prone to be treated as tainted with undue influence or coercion. If the witness, after recovering from the distress, states that she did not know the contents of the document when she signed it, a valid gift cannot be said to have been made even if the other requirements of the law are satisfied.‖
34. D.W.1 also admitted that the wife of Sriharikumar threatened to file Civil and Criminal cases even four months before the execution of Ex.A.1, and also in that aspect, the Police came to their house and that the Police took Sriharikumar and himself to the Police Station. By then, P.W.1 was staying with him in plaint 'B' schedule property. The evidence of D.W.1 also shows that except for plaint 'B' schedule property, the Plain- tiff had no other property. According to the version of D.W.1, there were disputes between him and the Plaintiff from March 2002, though they lived together till May 2003. During March 2003, he raised disputes before 18 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 elders and by that time, the terms between them had become harsh, and they were not in talking terms, and P.W.1 had no love and affection to- wards him by that time. The burden lies on the donee to show that the donor has independent advice or executed the document after removing the threat.
35. The trial Court pointed out that though P.W.1 specifically contended that the contents of Ex.A1-Gift Deed were not read over to her and she executed it under misrepresentation that she was executing a settlement deed in favour of her daughter, Prathima, no cogent evidence is placed before the Court to disprove her evidence. In the said facts of the case, the finding of the trial Court that no woman would receive Rs.1,00,000/- rupees in exchange for Rs.13,00,000/- worth of property when there were no talking terms and the relationship between them was harsh cannot be found fault.
36. After reading the material, this Court is satisfied that the gift was the result of the influence of the circumstances. The relationship between the donor and the donee shortly before the execution of the gift, being such as to raise a presumption that the donor had no love and affection towards her husband and the relationship between them is strained. The facts proved in this case are sufficient to show that Plaintiff had not acted voluntarily; she executed the document due to the pressure of prevailing circumstances at that time.
19
T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014
37. By considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that the Plaintiff had not voluntarily, out of love and affection, executed the original of Ex.A.1-Gift Deed. It was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and by exerting undue influence. The Plaintiff is able to establish that she is entitled to cancellation of Gift Deed and delivery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property with mesne profits.
38. For the reasons stated above, this Court views that the trial court's findings and observations are in accordance with the evidence on record and well-settled principles. Given the discussion, while answering the points and considering the legal aspects involved in the case, the view tak- en by the trial court does not call for any interference, and this Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld.
39. As a result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S. No.15 of 2005, dated 24.03.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.s & S.T.s (P.O.A.) Act-cum-X Additional District Judge& Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 16.11.2023 SAK/MS 20 T.M.R., J A.S. No.418 of 2014 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.418 OF 2014 Date: 16.11.2023 MS