Bangalore District Court
Leela V R vs Julie Praful on 4 August, 2025
KABC0A0024632021
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH.74)
P r e s e n t:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 04th day of August, 2025.
O.S.No.25931/2021
Plaintiffs:- 1. Smt. Leela.V.R.
W/o. Late N.Gopala Pillai,
Aged about 78 years,
2. Sri. Prasanna Kumar.G
S/o. Late N.Gopala Pillai,
Aged about 49 years,
Both are R/at: No. 403, Saideep Helicon,
29th Cross, Kaggadasapura, Balaji Layout,
C.V.Raman Nagar, Bengaluru - 93.
[By Sri. K.Sundaram - Advocate]
V/s.
Defendant:- 1. Smt. Julie Praful
Aged about 44 years,
W/o: late Praful Kumar G.,
2. Ms. Shriya P Nair
2 O.S. No.25931/2021
D/o: late Praful Kumar G.,
Aged about 19 years,
3. Master Shreyas Praful Nair
S/o: late Praful Kumar G.,
Aged about 19 years,
(Defendants No.2 & 3 being minors are
represented by their mother, first
defendant)
All are R/at No. 198 (3rd Floor),
Nandanam, Karthik Nagar, Marathahalli,
Bangalore 560037
4. Sri. Jubie Muralidharan,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o: Muralidharan S.,
R/at no.15, Dwaraka Rajiv Nagar,
Off Sarjapur Road, Choodasandra,
Bangalore 560099.
[For D1 to 4 By Kamal & Co., - Adv.]
Date of institution of the suit : 04/08/2021
Nature of the suit (Suit for pro-
note, suit for declaration and :
Declaration & Injunction
injunction, suit for injunction,
etc)
Date of commencement of : 15/07/2022
recording of evidence
3 O.S. No.25931/2021
Date on which the Judgment : 04/08/2025
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
04 00 00
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.08.07
16:50:44 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs have filed this suit as against the defendants No.1 to 4 seeking the relief of declaration that the gift deed dated 05/07/2021 as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and to declare that the 2 nd plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share along with plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, for permanent injunction and for such other further reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:-
That the plaintiff No.1 is the co-owner of the suit schedule property and now the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 are living together in the address shown in the cause title. The suit schedule property was originally allotted to the husband of 1 st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff by name Gopala Pillai N. by 4 O.S. No.25931/2021 LRDE Employees Housing Co-operative Societies. (in short society) The husband of the plaintiff No.1 was original member of the said society and his membership number was A324. The said Gopala Pillai.N died in the year 1991 leaving behind the plaintiffs and their another son by name Praful Kumar G. who is no more. Thereafter as the first plaintiff being the surviving legal heir, the membership of the said society was came to be transferred in the name of 1 st plaintiff and house site allotted to her husband was came to be registered in her name vide sale deed dated 15/06/1998.
3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that so as to purchase the said site the entire cost was paid by the husband of the 1st plaintiff and after his death the costs were paid out of the terminal benefit received by the 1st plaintiff from LRDE. The plaintiff No.1 is unemployed and had no source of income of her own. Thereafter the plaintiff No.1 constructed the dwelling house consisting of three floors out of the terminal benefits of her husband and also by receiving loan from SBI and M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Plaintiff No.1 repaid the loan out of the pension amount of her husband.
5 O.S. No.25931/20214. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 and Praful Kumar.G are two sons of plaintiff No.1 and the said Praful Kumar.G passed away on 10/06/2021 due to Covid-19 complications. The plaintiff No.1 while making construction of three floors sold her gold ornaments also. The defendant No.1 to 3 are the wife and children of deceased son Praful Kumar.G and defendant No.4 is the brother of 1 st defendant and he is witness of the gift deed.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that, after the demise of said 2nd son of this plaintiff No.1- Praful Kumar, the defendant No.1 approached her and appraised that she has to execute a will bequeathing the property in favour of 1 st defendant who was the nominee to the late Praful Kumar.G so as to claim insurance and accordingly the plaintiff No.1 agreed to execute the will. On the guise of executing the will the defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.4 took the 1 st plaintiff to the office of Sub-Registrar and made her to sign on some papers without disclosing the contents or showing the document. Plaintiff No.1 was under the bonafide belief that the document executed was Will in favour of plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 3. However, defendants suppressed that 6 O.S. No.25931/2021 the document executed was a gift deed in respect of the suit property. It is later the plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the defendants when the same was brought to her notice by the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiff was demanding the defendants to release the property in her name but the defendants promised and assured but they failed to take any action. The plaintiff No.1 was not having intention to gift the suit property and it was fraudulently obtained by the defendant No.1 based on the misrepresentation of fact and also by taking undue advantage of age and ill health of the plaintiff No.1 and her faith in the defendant. Accordingly the gift deed is sham document and not legally enforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants not acquired any right under the said document.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that as the 2 nd plaintiff is the son of 1st plaintiff and as the suit property was acquired with the money of deceased father of 2 nd plaintiff he is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property which is denied by execution of gift deed. Accordingly, the plaintiff No.2 is entitled to seek partition of his 1/3 rd share along with plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. The defendant No. 1 made 7 O.S. No.25931/2021 an attempt to sell the suit schedule property with an intention to defeat the claim of plaintiffs. Accordingly the suit is filed and prays to decree the suit.
7. After receiving the suit summons the defendants No. 1 to 4 appeared before the court through their counsel and filed their detailed written statement wherein the brief facts pleaded are as follows;
8. The plaintiff No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 15/06/1998. Thereafter vide registered gift deed 05/07/2021 the suit schedule property was gifted by the plaintiff No.1 to defendants No.1 to 3. Accordingly the defendant No.1 to 3 are the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was not at all in existence during the lifetime of said late N.Gopala Pillai. The 1st plaintiff was the original member of the Society with membership No.A636. The suit property was conveyed to the plaintiff No.1 under sale deed dated 15/06/1998 by the said society.
9. It is further contention of the defendants that, husband of the 1st plaintiff expired in the year 1991 and he 8 O.S. No.25931/2021 was never allotted with any sites by the said society in his lifetime. Hence the acquisition of suit property by paying the sale consideration by the said N.Gopal Pillai does not arise. The defendants have admitted that, plaintiff No.1 was unemployed and did not have any source of income of her own. Hence construction of three floor building does not arise.
10. It is further contention of the defendants that, after the death of husband of 1st plaintiff his job was given to 2 nd plaintiff as a compassionate job by the DRDO. There was an understanding among the family members that, he will continue to take care his mother for the rest of her life and inspite of this 1st plaintiff was always staying with her younger son late Sri. Praful Kumar till his demise and he was taking care of 1st plaintiff and all her expenses were borne by him. The 2nd plaintiff has never shown his responsibility towards 1st plaintiff until 10/06/2021.
11. It is further contention of the defendants that, it is late Sri. Praful Kumar has paid amount for the three storied house in suit property and it is he and this defendant No.1 commenced construction of ground floor in the year 2003 and put up construction of first floor and half portion of 2 nd floor in the year 2007. The remaining half portion of 2 nd floor and 9 O.S. No.25931/2021 3rd floor were put up by them in the year 2017 and subsequently by spending amount they have renovated the entire building. After the completion of the ground floor the defendant No.1 and her family along with 1st plaintiff moved to new house on 27/08/2004 and continued to reside there together till date. After the death of late Sri. Praful Kumar on 10/06/2021 the plaintiff No.1 started to reside with 2 nd plaintiff. It is the deceased Praful Kumar as well as this defendant No.1 have paid the building maintenance, cost of construction, water bills, BESCOM bills, BBMP taxes.
12. It is the further contention of defendants that, all the family members have decided that, the suit schedule property is for the younger son i.e., late Sri. Praful Kumar i.e., husband of the defendant No.1, since the 2 nd plaintiff availed government job held by his late father Sri.Gopala Pillai, on compassionate grounds. Hence for that reason 1 st defendant and her husband late Sri. Praful Kumar started construction of house, over the suit schedule property, in the year 2003. She denied that, the gift deed was obtained by playing fraud. According to the defendants, the 1 st plaintiff executed a will on 09/05/2007 and executed a registered Will on 05/04/2008. Even the address of the 1 st plaintiff in the said 10 O.S. No.25931/2021 2 will is shown to be the suit schedule property. In both the wills the 1st plaintiff has stated that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and she stayed with her younger son and defendant No.1 to 3 and her younger son has taken care of her during her sickness and also continuously helping her in all means by providing all such basic amenities and facilities. Even the plaintiff No.2 is aware of the execution and registration of the said wills.
13. It is the further contention of the defendants that in the year 2017 while the defendant No.1 and her husband commenced construction of 3rd floor her husband borrowed loan from HDFC Home Loan, Gold loan from SBI, loan from Sundaram Home Finance, loan from Bajaj Finance and other financial institution apart from borrowing huge amount from close friends and other family members, totally a sum of around Rs.1,00,00,000/- was taken as loan by 1 st defendant and her husband for construction of three storied residential building and subsequent renovation of entire building and repayment of the same is being made by 1 st defendant. That apart her husband late Praful Kumar also borrowed Rs.17,00,000/- from HDFC Bank and although loan was disbursed in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 and said Sri. 11 O.S. No.25931/2021 Praful Kumar, the monthly EMI was paid only by the said Praful Kumar. It is the husband of defendant No.1 cleared the housing loans before Bajaj finance, SBI, M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. The defendant No.1 and Praful Kumar have paid Rs. 1,44,500/- from 2003-2021 towards payment of property tax, Rs. 4,80,000/- towards BESCOM electricity charge, Rs. 1,83,600/- towards BWSSB water charges and Rs. 40,800/- towards LRDE society charges and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards building plan approval, sanction charges paid for house including water connection. As the Praful Kumar passed away on 10/06/2021 and as such the will dated 09/05/2007 and 05/04/2008 became infructuous. It is out of love and affection towards said Praful Kumar and also his wife and grandchildren i.e., defendant No.1 to 3 the plaintiff No. 1 executed gift deed in respect of the suit schedule property.
14. It is further contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff No. 1 had three other sites which were sold by her over many years back and the entire money was given to 2 nd plaintiff. There is also a three storied building owned by 2 nd plaintiff in his name in Kaggadaspura and the entire building is rented out. That apart the plaintiff No. 2 also purchased an 12 O.S. No.25931/2021 apartment in Kaggadaspura and both plaintiffs are residing there, the 1st plaintiff is a pensioner and presently drawing a pension of over Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is out of her own wish the plaintiff No.1 executed registered gift deed in favour of defendants. On 05/07/2021 the 2nd plaintiff picked up 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant in his car for registration of gift deed and he is the main eye witness and he only helped the 1st plaintiff to walk up to the first floor. It is in his presence the entire process of gift deed was held and he has not raised any objection for the gift deed executed by the 1 st plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 to 3.
15. It is also contention of the defendants that, prior to filing of this suit the plaintiff No. 1 also instituted proceedings bearing No.MSC/CR:40/2021-22 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, at Bengaluru as against the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 seeking cancellation of the said gift deed dated 05/07/2021. The notice was issued on 09/08/2021, the cause of action of the said proceedings and the present suit is one and the same. There is no cause of action for the present suit. Now the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 colluding with each other are trying to knock off the property from the defendant No.1 to 3. If the plaintiffs are 13 O.S. No.25931/2021 held entitled for any relief then the defendants reserves their right to claim equity. On the above grounds the defendants prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
16. Based on the pleadings, my Predecessor-in-office has framed following issues.
1) Whether the plaintiffs proves that, the defendants No.1 and 4 obtained Registered Gift Deed dated 05.07.2021 by playing fraud?
2) Whether the plaintiffs proves that, the gift deed dated 05.07.2021, executed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff in respect suit schedule property, is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
3) Whether the plaintiffs proves that, the plaintiff No.2 is entitle for 1/3rd share in the suit property along with plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 in the schedule property?
4) Whether the plaintiffs proves that, they are entitle for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants?
5) Whether the plaintiffs proves that, they are entitle for the relief sought in the plaint?
6) What order or decree?
14 O.S. No.25931/2021
17. Heard arguments of both side. Perused the
pleadings, evidence, documents and available materials on record. Both counsel apart from addressing oral arguments have also submitted their written arguments.
18. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1:- Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative Issue No.4:- In the Negative Issue No.5:- Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.6:- As per final Order for the following:
R E A S O N S
19. Issue No.1 & 2:- Since these issues are inter-linked with each other, I proceed to discuss together, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
20. In the case on hand before going to the merits of the case it is necessary to look into the admitted facts. Admittedly the plaintiff No.1 and her husband Gopala Pillai are having 2 children and they are the plaintiff No.2 i.e., Prasanna kumar.G and deceased Praful Kumar.G.(the husband of 15 O.S. No.25931/2021 defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 and 3). Hence the defendant No.1 is the daughter in law of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 and 3 are the grandchildren of plaintiff No.1. It is also admitted that the husband of plaintiff No.1 was an Employee of LRDE. It is also admitted that the plaintiff No.1 is house wife and unemployed. It is also not in dispute that, the defendant No.4 is the brother of defendant No.1 and he is not the family member of the plaintiffs or defendant No. 1 to 3.
21. With this factual background let us look into the case of the parties. The plaintiff No.1 has averred that she is co- owner of the suit schedule property and it is allotted to her husband and as her husband died in the year 1991 the membership of the society was transferred to her name and house site allotted to her husband was came to be registered in her name vide sale deed dated 15/06/1998. Though site was registered in her name the said site was acquired with the efforts of husband of the 1 st plaintiff and entire cost was paid by him till his death and subsequently paid out of the terminal benefit received by the 1st plaintiff by LRDE. The plaintiff No.1 is unemployed and had no source of income of her own. Thereafter the plaintiff No.1 constructed dwelling 16 O.S. No.25931/2021 house consisting of three floors out of the fund of terminal benefit of her husband and by raising loan. The loan was also repaid out of the pension amount of her husband. The defendant No.1 is the wife and defendants No.2 and 3 are children of deceased son Praful Kumar.G and after the death of the said Praful Kumar.G, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff No.1 and appraised that there is a need to execute the will bequeathing the property in favour of defendant No. 1 as she is nominee of Praful Kumar so as to claim insurance and on the guise of executing will the defendant No.1 & 4 took the plaintiff to the office of Sub-Registrar and made her to sign some papers without disclosing the contents or showing the documents for verification and got it executed. 1 st plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that the document executed was will in favour of 1st and 2nd plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3.The defendants suppressed the truth and it is later the plaintiffs came to know about the fraud committed by the defendants. She had no intention to gift the suit schedule property to the defendants and it was fraudulently obtained by the defendant No.1 on the basis of the misrepresentation of the facts and by taking undue advantage of age and ill-health of the plaintiff and her faith 17 O.S. No.25931/2021 in the defendants. Accordingly the gift deed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. As the suit property was acquired out of the money of Gopala Pillai plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 1/3rd share along with plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1.
22. On the contrary the entire case of the plaintiffs is denied by defendant No.1 to 4 and they contended that, the plaintiff No. 1 is wife of Gopala Pillai and this plaintiff No.1 was member of LRDE Employees Housing Co-operative Societies with membership No.A636 and she is the allottee of suit schedule property and sale deed was executed in the name of plaintiff No.1 and hence she is the absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property was not at all in existence during the lifetime of said Late N.Gopala Pillai. After the death of husband of 1st plaintiff there was understanding between the family members that plaintiff No.2 has to take job of Gopala Pillai on compassionate ground and 2 nd plaintiff also agreed to take care of his mother for the rest of her life and the suit property to be given to husband of defendant No.1. Though there was such an understanding the plaintiff No.1 was residing with her younger son only and he was taking care of 1st plaintiff. The entire building i.e., suit 18 O.S. No.25931/2021 schedule property was constructed by Praful Kumar and defendant No.1 by borrowing loan for construction and 1 st plaintiff executed will dated 09/05/2007 and registered will dated 05/04/2008 bequeathing suit property to Praful Kumar. However in view of death of Praful Kumar the will dated 09/05/2007 & 05/04/2008 became infructuous and hence it is out of the love and affection towards Praful Kumar and also his wife and grandchildren defendant No. 2 and 3 the plaintiff No.1 executed gift deed in respect of the suit schedule property on 05-07-2021. Accordingly defendant No.1 to 3 are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. If the plaintiffs are held entitled for any relief then the defendants reserves their right to claim equity.
23. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case got themselves examined as PW1 and PW2 and during the course of their evidence they have filed their respective chief examination affidavits reiterating the plaint averments on oath. The plaintiff No.1 was cross-examined by the defendants after the Court Commissioner being appointed. The plaintiffs got marked in all 3 documents as per Ex.P1 to 3. Ex.P1 is the copy of sale deed dated 15-06-1998, Ex.P2 is the copy of gift 19 O.S. No.25931/2021 deed dated 05-07-2021 and Ex.P3 is the copy of encumberance certificate.
24. On the contrary the defendants so as to prove their defence have examined the defendant No.1 and 4 as DW1 and DW2 and they examined 3 witnesses by name Mamatha.C, Bharath Kumar Perumalla, S.Muralidharan as DW2 to 4 and these DW1 & 5 during the course of their evidence have filed their respective chief examination affidavits reiterating the contention of their written statement. DW2 to 4 also during the course of evidence have filed their respective chief examination affidavits supporting the case of the defendants. DW2 and DW3 in their chief examination have deposed that they are the attesting witnesses to Ex.D1 will dated 09-05- 2007 executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favor of Praful Kumar. DW4 in his chief examination deposed that he is attesting witness to the will dated 05-04-2008 executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favor of Praful Kumar.
25. In support of their case the defendants have produced and got marked 20 documents as Ex.D1 to 20. Ex.D1 is the will dated 09-05-2007, Ex.D2 is the will dated 05-04-2008, Ex.D3 is the building approval plan, Ex.D4 is the Bank Statement of Praful Kumar before HDFC Bank, Ex.D5 is the 20 O.S. No.25931/2021 Bank Statement of defendant No.1before HDFC Bank, Ex.D6 is the Bank Statement of Praful Kumar before SBI, Ex.D7 is the Bank Statement of defendant No.1before Syndicate Bank, Ex.D8 is the Bank Statement of Praful Kumar before ICICI Bank, Ex.D9 is the 4 Tax paid receipts, Ex.D10 is the share certificate of LRDE Society, Ex.D11 is the housing loan agreement with Sundaram Finance, Ex.D12 is loan paper of HDFC for borrowing loan, Ex.D13 is the Order sheet maintained before Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Ex.D14 to 19 are tax paid receipts and Ex.D20 is the certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
26. It is pertinent to note that as admitted by the defendants themselves as the beneficiary under the Ex.D1 and 2 Wills that is the husband of defendant No.1 and father of Defendant No.2 and 3 by name Praful Kumar predeceased the plaintiff No.1 who is still alive the said wills marked as Ex.D1 and 2 will become infructuous and it has no sanctity in the eye of law.
27. The entire case of the plaintiffs and defendants revolves around the sale deed dated 15-06-1998 and gift deed dated 05-07-2021. If the ocular evidence of PW1 is looked 21 O.S. No.25931/2021 into she deposed that, she executed will dated 09/05/2007 in favour of her son Praful Kumar only for the purpose of availing loan. On 05/04/2008 she executed the registered will and it is executed for further construction in the schedule property. As discussed above these Ex.D1 and 2 wills are no more valid in the eye of law as they are infructuous.
28. PW1 further deposed that the LRDE Co-operative society not executed any sale deed in favour of her husband and suit schedule property was allotted through her husband.
29.On perusal of cross-examination of PW2 he deposed that, plaintiff No.1 was residing in the suit property during the life time of his brother and after the death of his brother now she is residing with him. He is not aware of the two wills executed by his mother and he is also not aware of the gift deed. On 05/07/2021 he accompanied his mother to the office of Sub-Registrar. He has not received any property either through will or under gift. He got the job of store officer on compassionate ground. He denied that as per the family settlement he got the job and the suit property was given to his brother, at the time he joined the said job as his brother was minor and his mother has given no objection for it.
22 O.S. No.25931/202130. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW1 she deposed that the plaintiff No.1 was not the employee of LRDE but she was member after the death of her father-in-law. Her father-in-law was original member of LRDE society and he had applied for sanction of site as he was the employee of the LRDE and as the member of the board. Her marriage with Praful Kumar was held in the year 2002. She do not know who has paid the site amount, she do not know who has obtained the terminal benefits of her father-in-law. In the year 2007 the first floor was constructed. She has constructed ground floor in the year 2003. She admits that the bank loan was obtained in the joint name of plaintiff and her husband. According to her as the property was standing in the name of plaintiff No.1 she was also party to the loan agreement. Till the death of her husband the plaintiff No.1 was residing in the half portion of the ground floor. Now the half portion of ground floor as well as first and second floor are rented out and she is collecting rent of Rs.50,000/- to 55,000/- every month. Ex.D4 to 8 statements are pertaining to saving bank account of defendant No.1 and her husband. In Ex.D1 and 2 the schedule is shown as site No.198. She denied that, the two wills Ex.D1 and 2 are pertaining to vacant site. They 23 O.S. No.25931/2021 have obtained loan in the year 2017. As per Ex.D12 her husband also purchased the site at Surya City.
31. This DW1 in her further cross examination deposed that her brother as well as an advocate have signed the gift deed as witnesses. She denied that the signature of plaintiff No.1 to the gift deed has been obtained in the car. She denied that it is only for the purpose of scanning plaintiff No.1 was taken inside the Sub-Registrar office.
32. On perusal of cross-examination of DW5 he deposed that, he signed gift deed as a witness. DW1 is his sister. Lawyer has also signed Ex.D2 as witness. At the time of execution of gift deed himself and DW1 plaintiff No.1 and 2 were present and advocate and one of the associate were also present. The plaintiff No.2 stated that he is on-duty and he cannot sign the documents. He denied that, he obtained the signature of plaintiff No.1 in the ground floor of the Sub- Registrar office stating that it is will. When it was asked this witness that what was the urgency to execute the gift deed within a span of 20 days from the date of death of husband of defendant No.1 the witness deposed that, it was asked by the Plaintiff No.1 Leela and she was aware of what was the idea of her elder son i.e., plaintiff No.2.
24 O.S. No.25931/202133. On perusal of Ex.P1 the same is certified copy of the sale deed dated 15/06/1998. The recital of the sale deed shows that, plaintiff No.1 was allottee of site No.198. Ex.P2 is the digital copy of the gift deed dated 05/07/2021 and the said document is disputed by the plaintiff on the ground that the said document was obtained by the defendant No.1 by misrepresentation and by playing fraud and the same is to be declared as null and void.
34. It is pertinent to note that, this PW1 as could be seen from pleadings and also from the ocular evidence of PW1 that, she is not an employee of the LRDE. It is the husband of this plaintiff No.1 was the employee of the LRDE. As the husband of this plaintiff No.1 expired in the year 1991 the plaintiff No.1 though she was not the employee of LRDE she was made member of the LRDE society and she was given with membership number.
35. On perusal of the Ex.D1 the will dated 09/05/2007 the same is also executed by this plaintiff No.1 and under the said will the plaintiff No. 1 bequeathed the property in favour of her younger son Praful Kumar and the said will is unregistered will. Ex.D2 is also will dated 05/04/2008 and it is the registered will executed by this plaintiff No. 1 in favor 25 O.S. No.25931/2021 of Praful Kumar. In both the wills the schedule is shown as site No.198 and no building is shown or mentioned in the schedule of Ex.D1 and 2 wills. No doubt the sale deed Ex.P1 shows that this plaintiff No.1 as an alloottee of the site No.198. However, as discussed above this plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Gopala Pillai who was the employee of LRDE and not this plaintiff No.1. From the careful perusal of the pleadings and also the evidence on record it is not in dispute that this plaintiff No.1 is mother of plaintiff No.2 and the husband of defendant No.1 Praful Kumar is also son of this plaintiff No.1. As discussed above admittedly the first plaintiff is not the employee of LRDE employees Housing Co-operative Societies. It is the husband of this plaintiff No.1 was the original member of the LRDE employees Housing Co-operative Societies with particular membership and he died in the year 1991 and after his death the plaintiff No.2 got the job of his father on compassionate grounds.
36. The recitals of Ex.P1 sale deed shows that the society where the husband of plaintiff No.1 was member collected site deposit from its members. It is also necessary to note that DW-1 also admits that it is the husband of plaintiff No.1 was the original member of said society and it is her 26 O.S. No.25931/2021 father-in-law i.e., husband of plaintiff No.1 applied for site sanction.
37. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW-1 she has specifically admitted that her mother-in-law was not an employee but also she was unemployed and did not have any source of income her own. Under circumstances whatever the money paid to get the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property shall be the earning and terminal benefit of deceased Gopala Pillai only. The plaintiff No.1 has not paid or contributed any amount of her own to purchase the suit schedule property and to get it registered in her name. As the husband of plaintiff No.1 died while he was member of said society the site was came to be registered in the name of this plaintiff No.1. That apart as this plaintiff No.1 was elder member in the family under the said circumstances the plaintiff No.1 was representing the family of deceased Gopala Pillai and accordingly suit property was allotted in the name of plaintiff No.1 and not in her individual capacity. When the plaintiff No.1 was allotted with suit schedule site as elder member of the family obviously she will not have any exclusive right of her own in respect of the suit schedule property to deal with it as per her own will and wish.
27 O.S. No.25931/202138. On perusal of Ex.D10 the share certificate it clearly shows that LRDE Housing Co-operative Society has issued the said share certificate in the name of plaintiff No.1 and clearly shows that this plaintiff No.1 as nominee of Late Sri. N. Gopala Pillai.
39. Now it is necessary to note that what are the essentials to constitute a valid gift. As could be seen from Sec.122 of Transfer of Property Act "Gift" is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
40. Hence to constitute valid gift there are certain essentials of a gift like there must be transfer of ownership, the ownership must relate to a property in existence, the transfer must be without consideration, it must have been made voluntarily, the donor must be a competent person and lastly the transferee must accept the gift.
41. In the case on hand this plaintiff No.1 being the wife of Gopal Pillai at the most was having 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule property and not beyond that. As discussed 28 O.S. No.25931/2021 above one of the essential condition to constitute valid gift the donor must be competent person.
42. It is pertinent to note that a donor is the person who makes the gift. In a transaction by way of gift the transferor is called a donor and he divests his ownership in the property so as to vest it in the transferee, the donee. The donor must be a sui juris. He must have therefore attained the age of majority, possess a sound mind and should not be otherwise disqualified. At this juncture it is also necessary to go through Section 7 of Transfer of Property Act and it is extracted below for reference.
Sec.7 Persons competent to transfer.--
Every person competent to contract and entitled to transferable property, or authorised to dispose of transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either wholly or in part, and either absolutely or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the extent and in the manner, allowed and prescribed by any law for the time being in force.
43. Hence from the careful reading of Sec.7 of Transfer of Property Act only such persons can effect a transfer of 29 O.S. No.25931/2021 property who are competent to contract. The result is, therefore, that a minor cannot make a gift of his properties or a person who is not authorized to dispose of property not of his own cannot gift the property. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, persons in fiduciary positions, e.g., trustees cannot make gifts of the property vested in them on behalf of others unless they are authorised to do so.
44. In the case on hand since the suit schedule property was made out in the name of plaintiff No.1 as she was wife of deceased Gopala Pillai and as she was senior member of the family so as to execute Ex.P2 gift deed in respect of the entire schedule property over which she had no absolute and exclusive title she has to obtain the consent of the all the other members who are having equal right and interest over the same. In the case on hand as admitted the donor i.e., plaintiff No.1 was not having clear and absolute title in respect of the entire suit schedule property. That apart her right was only to the extent of 1/3rd and not more than that. However the plaintiff No.1 without obtaining the consent of other members who are also the LRs of Gopal Pillai i.e., the plaintiff No.2 has gifted the entire suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 to 3.
30 O.S. No.25931/202145. The plaintiff No.1 donor was not competent to gift the entire suit schedule property. Accordingly the donee i.e., defendant No.1 to 3 will not acquire the right to claim the exclusive possession of the suit schedule property.
46. It is the argument of the defendants that the plaintiff No.2 was given with compassionate job on the death of husband of plaintiff No.1. It is pertinent to note that job given to this plaintiff No.2 may be on compassionate ground but if he does not perform his duty he will not going to earn anything from the said job. Hence the argument of the defendants that as the plaintiff No.2 was given with compassionate job the plaintiff No.1 being absolute owner gifted the suit property to defendant No.1 to 3 cannot be accepted.
47. The execution of Will as per Ex.D1 and 2 by the plaintiff No.1 in favor of husband of defendant No.1 are not sufficient to draw inference that the plaintiff No.1 was absolute owner of the suit property. It is also the argument of the defendants that they have constructed the three storied building in the suit schedule property while her husband Praful Kumar was alive. In this regard on perusal of the cross- examination of DW-1 she admits that the bank loan was 31 O.S. No.25931/2021 standing in the joint name of her husband as well as plaintiff No.1. On perusal of the Ex.D3 the sanctioned plan the same shows that the sanctioned plan was obtained in the name of plaintiff No.1, Ex.D4 is the account extract of HDFC Bank maintained in the name of Praful Kumar and it shows that it is salary account of said Praful Kumar. It is the argument of the defendants that from his account he has transferred amount towards the loan account. On perusal of the relevant entries of said account extract it shows that amount has been transferred to the ACH-D HDFC Limited. Whether it is the loan account for construction of house in the suit schedule property is not corroborated from the same. This DW1 has also produced bank account extract of herself at HDFC Bank. The said document does not show what was the EMI she paid towards the housing Loan in respect of suit schedule property.
48. On perusal of the account statemetn documents of Late Praful Kumar once again none of the said documents shows that it is towards construction of house in the suit schedule property the loan was borrowed by the husband of defendant No.1 and he has paid the EMI of said loan and the defendant No.1 has cleared the entire housing loan by the insurance amount.
32 O.S. No.25931/202149. The defendants have mainly relied upon the account extract of G.Praful Kumar and relying on the entries it was argued that the amount was transferred from the account of deceased Praful Kumar towards housing loan. However, entries in the account extract does not corroborate the contentions of the defendants. Even the account extract of this defendant No.1 is produced and in the said document also it is not shown that this defendant No.1 so as to construct house in the suit schedule property borrowed loan and she cleared the said loan amount. The statement of account of this defendant No.1 maintained before HDFC does not corroborated the arguments of the defendants that this defendant No.1 also repaid loan.
50. The loan agreement Ex.D11 shows that Rs.6 lakhs was borrowed by these plaintiffs No.1 & 2 along with deceased Praful Kumar. However the defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiff No.1 and Praful Kumar have jointly borrowed the loan but the loan agreement shows that even this plaintiff No.2 is also co-borrower. Hence the said Ex.D12 though it is marked on behalf of the defendants it supports the case of the plaintiffs only that the loan borrowed for construction of house in the suit property is joint loan borrowed by Plaintiffs 33 O.S. No.25931/2021 No.1 and 2 and late Praful Kumar. Hence the housing loan was also borrowed by all the three LRS of deceased Gopala Pillai.
51. If the suit schedule property was allotted in the name of plaintiff No.1 exclusively then the housing loan could have been borrowed in the individual name of this plaintiff No.1 only. Accordingly this plaintiff No.1 was not the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and inspite of that she executed the gift deed without obtaining the consent of other co-owners i.e., plaintiff No.2. Under the circumstances the gift deed does not comply with the requirements of valid gift. No doubt the tax paid receipt are produced by the defendant No.1. However it is necessary to note that the said tax paid receipts shows the name of plaintiff No.1 only as owner and it is also necessary to note that the concerned Authority empowered to receive tax will receive the tax even if it is paid by the other members in the name of original owner. Hence the said tax paid receipts clearly shows that the gift deed Ex.P2 is not at all acted upon. Hence the tax receipts will not confer the title of the plaintiff No.1 or the title of these defendants No.1 to 3.
34 O.S. No.25931/202152. Accordingly the gift deed dated 05-07-2021 executed by this plaintiff No.1 in favor of defendants No.1 to 3 is a not enforceable document and as the plaintiff No.1 had no absolute right to execute the said document without the consent of other co-owners that is the plaintiff No.2 is a null and void document and it is to be held that it is not binding on plaintiffs. As the plaintiff No.1 had no absolute right over the suit schedule property and inspite of that the gift deed is executed by this plaintiff No.1 in favor of defendants No.1 to 3 so as to deprive the right of plaintiff No.2 and hence it is to be held that the gift deed was executed by the plaintiff no.1 fraudulently. Accordingly I answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and Issue No.2 in the affirmative.
53. Issue No.3:- When the plaintiffs established that the gift deed dated 05.07.2007 is null and void then the plaintiff No.1 & 2 being LRS of late Gopala Pillai and defendant No.1 to 3 being LRS of Late G. Praful Kumar S/o Gopala Pillai are entitled for their respective 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly. plaintiff No.1 & 2 are entitled to 1/3 rd share each and the defendant No.1 to 3 together are entitled 35 O.S. No.25931/2021 to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I answered issue No.3 in the affirmative.
54. Issue No.4: Admittedly the plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff No.2 is son of Gopala Pillai and Defendants No.1 to 3 are the LRs of Praful Kumar S/o Gopala Pillai and accordingly they are co-owners of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants No.1 to 3 to not to alienate the suit property as against co-owners. That apart no evidence as such is placed to establish that the defendants are trying to create charge over suit schedule property. Hence I answered this issue in the Negative.
55. Issue No.5: In view of my findings on issue No.1 partly in affirmative and issue No.2 and 3 in the affirmative the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief as prayed for as against defendants No.1 to 3 only. Accordingly, I have answered Issue No.5 partly in the affirmative.
36 O.S. No.25931/202156. Issue No.6: For the various reasons discussed in point Nos.1 to 5 and findings given on it by me, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The gift deed dated 05.07.2021 executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1 to 3 in respect of suit schedule property is declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs.
Consequently, the plaintiff No.1 & 2 are held entitled to 1/3rd share each and defendant No.1 to 3 together are held entitled to 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
--
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of August, 2025) Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.08.07 16:51:07 +0530 (ANITHA N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74) 37 O.S. No.25931/2021 A N N E X U R E
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff side:-
P.W.1 : Smt.V.R.Leela P.W.2 : Prasanna Kumar
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15/06/1998 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of the gift deed dated 05/07/2021 Ex.P.3 : Original copy of EC
3. List of witness examined for the defendants side:-
D.W.1 : Julie Praful D.W.2 : Mamatha C. D.W.3 : Bharat Kumar Perumalla D.W.4 : S.Muralidharan D.W.5 : Jubie Muralidharan
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants side:-
Ex.D.1 : Notarized copy of will dated 09/05/2007 Ex.D.2 : Original Will dated 05/04/2008 Ex.D.3 : Building Approval Plan 38 O.S. No.25931/2021 Ex.D.4 : HDFC Bank Statement of Late Praful Kumar.G for the period of 01/01/2011 to 08/08/2021 Ex.D.5 : HDFC Bank Statement of defendant No. 1 for the period 01/09/2007 to 30/05/2021 Ex.D.6 : SBI Bank Statement of Late Praful Kumar for the period of 01/01/2003 to 01/05/2020 Ex.D.7 : Syndicate Bank Statement of defendant No. 1 for the period 01/01/2003 to 12/11/2021 Ex.D.8 : ICICI Bank Statement of Late Praful Kumar for the period 02/01/2012 to 15/10/2021 Ex.D.9 : 4 tax paid receipt Ex.D.10 : Share of LRDE Employees Housing Co-
operative Society Ex.D.11 : Loan document received from Sundaram Finance Institution Ex.D.12 : Loan documents received in HDFC Bank Ex.D.13 : Order sheet maintained before Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Ex.D.14-19 : 6 tax paid receipts given by BBMP Ex.D.20 : Certificate u/sec.65-B of The Indian Evidence Act Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.08.07 16:51:14 +0530 (ANITHA N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74)