Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The plaintiffs have filed this suit explaining that, the cause of action for the suit arose in the month of February 2000 when the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged oral gift in favour of Smt. Laxmibai and registered gift deed in favour of the defendant, by Smt. Laxmibai and therefore, they filed the suit within the period of limitation. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration that the alleged oral gift deed dated 22.04.1946 made in favour of Smt. Laxmibai by Ramachandra Jadhav as void, illegal and did not divest the property in her favour. Further, claimed that the registered gift deed executed by Smt. Laxmibai in favour of the defendant dated 30.01.1969 is not binding to the extent of the share of late Anandarao and for partition and separate possession of the share of deceased- Anandarao as per law and for such other relief's as the Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

40. The Trial Court has categorically came to the conclusion that the said property given in the nature of a gift, is not registered in accordance with law and therefore, no complete title has been passed on to the said Smt. Laxmibai and after the death of Ramachandra Jadhav, the said property fell to the family consisting of first plaintiff's husband-Anandarao and the deceased- Laxmibai and to the defendant-Doulatarao. Therefore, all of them have got equal share in the said property. As the said Smt. Laxmibai died intestate, the plaintiffs and defendant are equally entitled to half share each. Therefore, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent of half share. The Trial Court has specifically considered that if any property should be acquired by the Hindu female, it should be by way of documents recognized under law. It has also observed that looking to Ex.P2 and Ex.D6, no reasons have been given as to why the deceased-Ramachandra Jadhav gifted the property to Smt. Laxmibai and the value of the property is not mentioned. So alleged gift deed dated 22.04.1946 which is thirty years old after the alleged oral gift, the property worth more than Rs.100/- therefore, it should have been given by means of registered gift deed and as such, Smt. Laxmibai did not get any right over the property.

66. In the same paragraph at page No.5 there is reference with regard to this gift deed wherein the plaintiffs have stated that, "Wherefore, when Laxmibai had not got better right, title or interest vested in respect of the suit property, even by virtue of the alleged registered gift deed executed in favour of the defendant-Doulatarao dated 03.02.1969, Doulatarao did not get any full fledged and absolute rights in respect of the suit property and as such, rights of Anandarao remained unaffected".

69. Therefore, on plain understanding of the pleadings of the plaint, there is no specific denial with regard to the execution of the gift deed by Smt. Laxmibai in favour of the defendant nor there is any prayer for cancellation of the same. Apart from that, no fraud or no forgery or no misrepresentation or any other circumstances of similar nature has been pleaded by the plaintiffs in this regard.

70. In this background, the written statement of the defendant also play certain role. In the written statement so far as this gift is concerned, he has specifically pleaded at page No.2 in paragraph-2(a) that, "Smt. Laxmibai was the exclusive owner of the suit house property and as such she has given the same to her son, the defendant, by way of gift by executing a registered gift deed dated 30.01.1969 and since then the defendant is the exclusive owner of the suit property. Accordingly, defendant's name also appears in the CTS records as the owner of the suit property by virtue of the said gift deed and the same is continued till now.