Telangana High Court
Sheelam Charles Amritraj vs Sheelam Shakuntala Amritraj And 2 ... on 7 June, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.230 of 2011
JUDGMENT:(as per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 29.09.2011 in O.P.No.254 of 2009 passed by the learned Addl. Family Court, Hyderabad, the 1st appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.
3. The 1st Appellant-husband of the 1st respondent and father of 2nd and 3rd appellants and respondents 2 and 3 respectively filed the aforesaid O.P seeking the following reliefs:
1) To declare the plaintiff as sole and absolute owner of the remaining 50% undivided share in the entire suit schedule residential house comprising of a double storied residential house along with vacant land appurtenant thereto, totally admeasuring 235sq.yds out of 470sq.yds and bearing distinct Municipal No.6-3-597/8, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairtahad, Hyderabad, left after execution of the Registered Gift-cum-
Settlement Deed dated 29.01.2009 in respect of the remaining 50% undivided share of the suit schedule residential house.
2
KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011
2) To direct the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to produce and file into Court the Original Gift Settlement Deed dated 21.11.2008 registered as Document No.2528 of 2009 and adjudging the Gift Settlement Deed dated 21.11.2008 registered as Document No.2528 of 2008 in the office of the S.R.O, S.R Nagar executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as Cancelled.
3) To direct the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to produce and file into Court the Original Gift Settlement Deed dated 21.11.2008 registered as Document No.2528 of 2009 and also direct that the Judgement & Decree be conveyed to the S.R.O, S.R Nagar for effecting the entry of cancellation of the Register maintained under the Indian Registration Act, 1900.
4) To grant a Decree of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and their representatives, agents or, servants and any claiming through them from trespassing over encroaching into any part or, portion of the 50% undivided share in the entire suit schedule residential house comprising of a double storied residential house along with vacant land appurtenant thereto, totally admeasuring 235sq.yds out of 470sq.yds and bearing distinct Municipal No.6-3-597/8, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairtahad, Hyderabad.
4. The marriage of the 1st appellant with the 1st respondent was performed on 02.02.1960. They were blessed with four children-two sons and two daughters i.e. appellants 2 and 3 and respondents 2 and 3. The 1st appellant is a qualified trained Paramedic and he was a Non-Resident Indian, gainfully 3 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 employed in the Saudi Arabian-American Oil Company, Kingdom of SAudi Arabia since 01.11.1954 for a continuous period of thirty eight (38) years. His wife i.e. the 1st respondent is a housewife and she remained in India tending to the needs of the family and looking after the children. He was maintaining various bank accounts and after assimilated certain wealth by way of salary from his overseas service, he has purchased the subject property i.e. entire premises comprising of a double storied residential house along with vacant land appurtenant thereto, totally admeasuring 235sq.yds out of 470sq.yds and bearing distinct Municipal No.6-3-597/8, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairtahad, Hyderabad (hereinafter 'the subject property'). He has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- by way of cheques bearing Nos.285668 and 205667 both dated 05.08.1981 drawn on S.B.I, Foreign Exchange Department, Hyderabad Main Branch. By withdrawing the money, he has purchased the Demand Drafts by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/-. After purchasing the subject property, he has constructed an additional floor by utilising his own funds. The 1st respondent did not contribute even a single pie for purchasing the subject property and for construction of an additional floor.
5. It is further contended that his legal advisor advised him that insofar as the incidence of Estate duty Tax prevailing at that particular point of time was extremely crippling, he would be well advised to name his wife as his co- 4
KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 purchaser in the sale deed in order to avoid payment of Estate Duty Tax in the event of his untimely demise. He was further advised that the sale constitute legitimate tax planning as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in judgments reported in AIR 1968 SC 49 and AIR 2004 SC 1107. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court held that a Benami purchase is neither an offence nor prohibited at that point of time in 1981. Therefore, on the advise of his legal advisor, he has purchased the subject property in his name and also in the name of his wife by mentioning her as co-purchaser under a registered sale deed dated document bearing No.4726 of 1981 dated 05.08.1981 (Ex.P1/R1).
6. In the said sale deed, his name was mentioned as 1st purchaser and his wife's name as 2nd purchaser. The 1st respondent was merely the benamidar of the 1st appellant and actually and factually, the he himself is the actual and factual owner and possessor of the subject property. The 1st appellant and the 1st respondent were blessed with two sons and two daughters. After his retirement from service, he continued to reside in the entire subject property along with his youngest son, wife-1st respondent and his wife never gave any indication that she is claiming half share in the subject property in terms of the aforesaid sale deed under Ex.P1/R1. According to him, he was under the impression that the 1st respondent remained as a obedient and dutiful wife. He has performed the marriages of his daughters i.e. respondents 2 and 3 and they 5 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 have settled in life. He underwent Cardiac Bye-pass surgery in the month of September, 2008 and while he was recovering from his surgery, he introspected deeply and arrived at a conclusion that his youngest son i.e. Jaideep Kumar Amritraj-3rd appellant herein, should be gifted the entire subject property. He made his intention known to all the family members including the respondents and his elder son i.e. appellant No.2, who migrated to U.S.A and well settled there. No sooner the 1st appellant made his intention known to all his family members, trouble erupted and his daughters appeared to have prevailed upon the 1st respondent to execute a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.2528 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008 (Ex.P4/R2) in respect of 50% undivided share in the entire subject property in their favour. He was recuperating from the major Cardiac surgery and therefore, he could not prevent the acts of the respondents. The said Ex.P4/R2 was executed by the 1st respondent in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the extent of 50% of the share in the entire subject property is illegal. The subject property is undivided property. The 1st appellant can't execute the aforesaid Ex.P4/R2 only to the extent of 50% undivided share. He has purchased the subject property with his hard earned money and he has constructed an additional floor. He has spent an amount of Rs.22.00Lakhs to both his daughters during the month of December, 2008. He has paid substantial amounts during their marriages and since last 15 and 20 years, they are staying with their families. It is further contended by the 1st appellant that the 1st 6 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 respondent is merely an ostensible owner or his benamidar in respect of 50% of undivided share in the entire subject property share in fiduciary position. She can't execute Ex.P4/R2 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of 50% of the subject property. She has virtually no legal right to convey or transfer the subject property in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and they are not in possession of the subject property. Therefore, with the said contentions, he sought the aforesaid reliefs in the aforesaid O.P.
7. The 1st respondent filed written statement denying the allegations made by the 1st appellant. According to her, she was a qualified Nurse and Midwife and by the time of her marriage with the 1st appellant in the year 1960, she was working as a Nurse for more than eight years. After her marriage with the 1st appellant, she was working as with breaks in career, whenever necessary due to conceiving children and due to other matrimonial developments. She worked as casual employee in the Hospitals in India as well as in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even in Saudi Arabia, she worked as casual employee in the Administrative Department of Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) Hospital, where the 1st appellant was working as nursing shift supervisor. She continuously worked in the said hospital from 1979 to 1988 with monthly remuneration, which was directly paid in cash to her husband. The subject property was actually purchased with the money earned by the 1st respondent 7 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 herein and saved by the 1st appellant at the instance of the 1st respondent. The 1st appellant was having lot of family responsibilities of his parents, brothers and sisters, as he was having three brothers and five sisters. Two brothers and five sisters were younger to him. His father was only a teacher and was unable to feed the family. Due to the said pathetic conditions, he could not even study his graduation and was forced to earn for the family. His mother expired in the year 1983. His father survived for five more years thereafter. The 1st appellant has taken the responsibility of his parents, brothers and sisters totally and used to send almost his entire salary to his family only. She never objected for the same. On the other hand, she has co-operated with the 1st appellant. He purchased a house in Kurnool for his mother and other family members. She has supported the 1st appellant. She did not have NRI account. The subject property was purchased at the instance of the 1st respondent only, using savings of her earnings, as she insisted the 1st appellant that a house should be purchased with savings in her earnings, for the benefit of all their children. Therefore, she is not at all a mere benamidar as claimed by the 1st appellant.
8. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that in the year 1981 itself, i.e. at the time of purchasing the subject property, it was clearly agreed between the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent that 50% of share of subject property of the 1st appellant should go to both the sons and the balance 50% share of the 1st 8 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 respondent should go to both the daughters. It was further agreed and decided by the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent that they should not use the rental income from the subject property for any purpose. As agreed in the year 1981, she has executed the aforesaid Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.P4/R2) in favour of her daughters i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3. The 1st appellant has also executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.116 of 2009 dated 20.01.2009 (Ex.P5) in favour of his younger son i.e. the 3rd appellant herein in respect of 50% of his share. The 2nd appellant, elder son of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent settled in USA and he is not claiming any share in the subject property. As decided earlier, in the month of December, 2008, the 1st appellant gave an amount of Rs.10.00Lakhs to the 2nd respondent and an amount of Rs.12.00Lakhs to the 3rd respondent towards their respective shares in the accumulated rental income from the subject property. All the said settlements are done purely in accordance with the previous understanding between the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent and there is no dispute at all with regard to the said aspect.
9. In the middle of January, 2009, the 1st respondent came to know that the 3rd appellant, her younger son impersonated her and got registered a Gift Settlement Deed in his favor in respect of a house property bearing No.1- 65/43/70, admeasuring 350Sq.Yds on Plot No.70 in Sy.No.32, situated in 9 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 Guttala Begumpet of Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, vide document bearing No.9810 of 2005 dated 01.07.2005 (Ex.R4). She requested the 1st and 3rd appellants to cancel the said fabricated document. They refused to do so. She expressed her willingness to lodge a complaint against the 3rd appellant. The 1st appellant was upset due to the said action since he was more attached with the 3rd appellant. She has filed a criminal case against the 3rd appellant for forgery and impersonation and the same is still pending. The 1st and 3rd appellants started harassing the 1st respondent and stopped providing food and medicines to her. They have also abused her in filthy, unparliamentary language. Thus, according to her, the subject property was purchased with her hard earnings and therefore, she is not a benamidar and the 1st appellant is not entitled for 50% share in the subject property.
10. In proof of the said claim, the 1st appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined 3rd appellant, his younger son as PW2. He has filed Exs.P1 to P6. To disprove the said claim, the 1st respondent examined herself as RW1 and also examined her daughter as RW2 and third party as RW3. She has filed Exs.R1 to R12. On consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order 29.09.2011, the learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P holding that the 1st respondent is not binamidar and she was actual owner of 50% of share in the subject property. Learned Family Court also observed that 10 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 there is no need to go into Gift Deed (Ex.R4) because admittedly, a criminal case is filed against PW2 by R1 and that the claim of the 1st appellant for 100% schedule property is absolutely incorrect.
11. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the subject property was purchased under registered sale deed bearing document No.4726 of 1981 dated 05.08.1981 (Ex.P1/R1) in the name of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent. It is not in dispute that thereafter, an additional floor was constructed. In Ex.P1/R1 sale deed, it is mentioned that the subject property therein was purchased by paying an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- towards total sale consideration. It is further mentioned that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid on 22.05.1981 by way of demand draft. A further sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid by way of cheque bearing No.285667 dated 14.07.1981. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the purchasers by way of cheque bearing No.285668 dated 05.08.1981. In the said sale deed, there is no mention that both the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent are entitled for 50% of the subject property. Their names were mentioned as purchasers.
12. According to the 1st appellant, he is working as a qualified trained Paramedic and working in the Saudi Arabian-American Oil Company, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he has paid the aforesaid entire sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- to his vendor. The 1st respondent is not having any amount and 11 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 she has no source of income and therefore, the question of she contributing for purchase of the subject property does not arise. Whereas, the 1st respondent is claiming that she is a qualified nurse and she worked as a Nurse and she has contributed the aforesaid sale consideration for purchasing the subject property. Therefore, she is not a benamidar as alleged by the 1st appellant.
13. The 1st appellant is claiming that only on the legal advise of his lawyer, to avoid the tax payment, he has purchased the subject property by showing the 1st respondent as co-purchaser. In fact, she is not a purchaser and she has not contributed any amount.
14. Thus, both the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent are claiming that they have individually purchased the subject property with their own contributions. Further, under Ex.P1/R1 sale deed, the names of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent were shown as purchasers. There is no mention about their shares. The said purchase is a joint purchase.
15. It is not in dispute that both the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent were blessed with four children i.e. two sons-2nd and 3rd appellants and two daughters-2nd and 3rd respondents. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd appellant, elder son settled in USA and he is not claiming share in the subject property.
16. 1st respondent has executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2528 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008 (Ex.P4/R2) in favour of her two 12 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 daughters i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the said Gift Settlement Deed, it is mentioned that the 1st respondent is shown as one of the joint owner and possessor of the entire premises in the subject property and she is having undivided share and interest to the extent of 50%. The entire premises was actually purchased by her jointly along with her husband from M/s. The Andhra Christian Theological College. Therefore, the entire premises is under sole and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the 1st respondent and her husband in a joint manner, without any interruption or interference from anybody else and she is entitled to convey her share in the said premises to anybody whom she likes.
17. In the schedule of property of the said Gift Settlement Deed under Ex. Ex.P4/R2, it is mentioned as follows:
"All that the 50% undivided right, share and interest of the premises bearing Municipal Nos.6-3-597/8, comprised of land totally admeasuring 470.00 sqare yards, equivalent to 392.96 square meters, situated at Anand Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, A.P., which is more clearly delineated in teh plan annexed hereto marked in RED COLOUR".
18. It is also relevant to note that the 1st respondent has executed a Rectification Deed bearing document No.361 of 2009 dated 06.03.2009 (Ex.R3) to incorporate in paragraph 10 in the Gift Settlement Deed under Ex.P4/R2, which is as follows:
13
KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 "10. That the Donees/Settlees wherein have "ACCEPTED" the said "GIFT" of the 50% Donors share of the House/Schedule property i.e., North-
Western side of the total House.
Further, it is necessary to mention specifically that there is / are no other changes in any aspect except in the body to be added with para 10 as aforementioned.
Whereas this document doesn't create any independent right nor extinguish any right and this is only a subsidiary and subadinate to the registered principal Gift Settlement deed, dated 21.11.2008.
In addition to this, deed of Rectification shall be treated and considered as genuine worthfull force and affect from the date of execution of rectification deed".
19. As discussed supra, the subject property is an undivided property. Even though it is the contention of the 1st respondent that the subject property was purchased with her contributions, in the said registered Gift settlement deed under Ex.P4/R2, she is claiming that herself and her husband i.e. the 1st appellant are the joint owners of the subject property. Therefore, she can't execute the aforesaid Gift settlement Deed in respect of 50% of undivided property. The 1st appellant and the 1st respondent have to divide the subject property by either with mutual consent or by way of filing a suit for partition and separate possession. Instead of doing so, the 14 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 1st respondent has executed the aforesaid registered Gift Settlement Deed under Ex.P4/R2 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, her daughters. In fact, she has executed the aforesaid registered Rectification Deed (Ex.R3) stating that 50% of her share is northern side. The said aspects are contrary to law and also to the contents of registered sale deed under Ex.P1/R1.
20. As discussed supra, the 1st respondent can't execute the registered Gift Settlement Deed under Ex.P4/R2 in favour of her two daughters in respect of 50% share of the subject property. The 1st respondent having contended that she is owner of 50% share of the subject property, without division or partition of the same by fixing metes and bounds, she can't execute Ex.P4/R2 or Ex.R3- Rectification Deed showing the property towards northern side. The said action of the 1st respondent in executing the aforesaid Gift settlement Deed and Rectification Deed is illegal.
21. It is also relevant to note that the 1st appellant herein has executed a registered Will Deed bearing document No.126 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009 (Ex.P6) in favour of the 3rd appellant, his younger son in respect of the undivided half share of the subject property.
In the said Will Deed, the schedule of property is mentioned as follows:
"ALL that the Undivided Half share in House bearing No.6-3- 597/8, along with an Undivided share of land admeasuring 235.00 15 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 Sq.Yards or 196.48 Sq.Mts, out of total land admeasuring 470 Sq. Yards or 393.00 Sq.Mts, consisting of half share in Ground and First Floors, in Part of Survey No.263 (Old No.129/13), on Plot No.13, situated at Anand Nagar (West), Shaikapet Village. Khairatabad. Under GHMC Hyderabad, A.P".
Even execution of the said Will Deed under Ex.P6 by the 1st appellant in favour of the 3rd appellant in respect of the undivided half share of the subject property is also illegal.
22. In the said registered Will Deed under Ex.P6, there is a mention about filing of the aforesaid O.P.No.254 of 2009 by the 1st appellant and its pendency. Thus, during the pendency of the aforesaid O.P, the 1st appellant has also executed the aforesaid Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.116 of 2009 dated 20.01.2009 (Ex.P5) in favour of the 3rd appellant. The same is also illegal.
23. It is also apt to note that the 1st appellant has executed Ex.P5 Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the 3rd appellant in respect of the undivided half share of the subject property. Thereafter, he has also executed the aforesaid Will Deed under Ex.P6 in respect of the undivided half share of the subject property.
24. Therefore, as discussed supra, the subject property is undivided property. It was purchased in the name of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent jointly. 16
KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 The 1st appellant herein can't execute the aforesaid registered Gift Settlement Deed and Will Deed in favour of the 3rd appellant showing that the schedule property therein is an undivided half share. Hence, both the documents are illegal and the same are in violation of provisions of Transfer of Property Act and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Singh and others v. Gurmej Singh1.
25. The 1st respondent contended that the 3rd appellant has obtained a registered Gift Deed bearing document No.9810 of 2005 dated 01.07.2005 (Ex.R4) in respect of the property situated in Guttala Begumpet by impersonating her and also forging her signature. She already lodged a complaint with police and the said complaint is pending.
26. As discussed supra, the present appeal is in respect of the subject property and the aforesaid property is situated in Guttala Begumpet is not included in the subject property. Therefore, it is for the 1st respondent and the 3rd appellant to pursue the said proceedings.
27. The subject property is undivided property. In Ex.P1/R1 sale deed, the names of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent were shown as purchasers. If they wants to claim share i.e. half share of the subject property, they have to file a suit for partition or they can divide the subject property by way of executing a 1 (2009) 15 SCC 747 17 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 partition deed. Without dividing the subject property by metes and bounds, the 1st respondent has illegally executed the aforesaid registered Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.P4/R2) and registered Rectification Deed (Ex.R3) in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, her daughters. Likewise, the 1st appellant has also executed the aforesaid registered Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.P5) and registered Will Deed (Ex.P6) in favour of the 3rd appellant, which is also illegal and the same is in violation of the Transfer of Property Act and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Singh and others (supra).
28. Moreover, the 1st appellant had filed the aforesaid O.P.No.254 of 2009 to declare him as owner of remaining 50% of undivided share in the entire suit schedule property, also to cancel the registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2528 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008 (Ex.P4/R2) and also for permanent injunction. He has not entitled for declaration and permanent injunction. He has to file a suit for partition seeking to divide the subject property and separate possession by metes and bounds. Instead of doing so, he has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.254 of 2009 seeking declaration and cancellation of the registered Gift Settlement Deed under Ex.P4/R2 and also for permanent injunction. Vide impugned order, the learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P on the ground that the 1st respondent is not a benamidar and she is entitled for 50% share in the subject property. The said finding of the learned 18 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 Family Court is contrary to law and evidence on record both oral and documentary.
29. Learned Family Court failed to consider that under Ex.P1/R1, the subject property was purchased by the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent. The issue that the said property was purchased by the contributions of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent has to be considered in a suit for partition and separate possession of the subject property. The further finding of the learned Family court in the impugned order is that Ex.P4/R2 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, her natural daughters cannot be cancelled and therefore, the 1st appellant is not entitled for injunction. The said findings are contrary to law and facts.
30. The learned Family Court further held that there is wrong on the part of the 1st appellant (PW1) in transferring his 50% share, only in the name of PW2 without giving any share to his 1st son and there is no relinquishment deed from the 1st son of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent. Learned Family Court failed to consider that even the 1st respondent cannot execute the aforesaid Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.P4/R2) and Rectification Deed (Ex.R3) in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents only in respect of the undivided half share of the subject property. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the appellant Nos.2 and 3 being the sons are also entitled for undivided half share of the 1st 19 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 respondent as claimed by her. The said aspects were not considered by the learned Family Court in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of actual facts and also law.
31. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the present appeal, the 1st appellant died and appellant Nos.2 and 3 were brought on record.
32. Perusal of record would reveal that the 2nd appellant, elder son of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent is not claiming any right over the subject property. He settled in USA and he is not claiming the subject property. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 29.09.2011 in O.P.No.254 of 2009 passed by the learned Family Court is set aside. The aforesaid findings of the learned Family court are declared as illegal. The registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2528 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008 (Ex.P4/R2) and registered Rectification Deed bearing document No.361 of 2009 dated 06.03.2009 (Ex.R3) are declared as null and void. Likewise, the registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.116 of 2009 dated 20.01.2009 (Ex.P5) and registered Will Deed bearing document No.126 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009 (Ex.P6) executed by the 1st appellant in favour of the 3rd appellant are declared as null and void. Liberty is granted to appellants No.2 and respondents to file a suit for partition and separate possession of the subject property. They are also granted liberty to raise all the 20 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 contentions and grounds which they have raised in the aforesaid O.P.No.254 of 2009 and in the present appeal.
33. With the aforesaid directions, this Family Court Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Family Court Appeal shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J ______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 07 .06.2024 gvl 21 KL,J & SKS,J F.C.A.No.230 of 2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.230 of 2011 (as per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Date: 07.06.2024 gvl