Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the suit properties bearing Sy.No.115(a) measuring 11 acres 2 guntas situated at Muneer Bommanhalli village, Shorapur taluk, Sy.No.9(a) measuring 11 acres 2 guntas known as 'Gobbar Hola' situated at Yaktapur village, Shorapur taluk and Sy.No.10(b) measuring 9 acres 16 guntas known as 'Murmuli Hola' situated at Yaktapur village, Shorapur taluk, the defendant was not related to her in any manner whatsoever and the defendant having no concern with the plaintiff got executed the registered gift deed in her favour on 20.09.1975 from the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. It was further contended that there was absolutely no consideration of love and affection between the plaintiff and the defendant so as to execute a gift deed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Therefore, in the absence of any love and affection between the plaintiff and the defendant that the alleged registered gift deed dated 20.09.1975 does not confer any right, title or interest to the defendant over the suit properties. It was further contended that the defendant got the suit properties mutated in her name on the strength of the said false and fictitious gift deed with the collusion and connivance of the revenue officials in the year 1981-82 without service of any notice on the plaintiff as per the procedure known to law. Therefore, plaintiff has filed suit for the relief as sought for.

4. It was further contended that on 29.09.1975 the plaintiff on her own volition executed a registered gift deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit properties as per the wishes of her late husband. Therefore, the question of the absence of love and affection for the plaintiff to execute a gift deed in favour of the defendant is totally false. On the basis of the said registered gift deed, the defendant got the suit properties mutated in her name as per law. Therefore, the question of collusion or connivance with the revenue officials in mutation of the suit properties in favour of the defendant does not arise. It was further contended that Smt.Laxmi Bai w/o deceased Bindu Rao and her son have filed the present false suit against the defendant challenging the legality of the registered gift deed dated 20.09.1975 without the knowledge of the plaintiff herself. Since, the said Smt.Laxmi Bai and her son are intending to knock of the suit properties. Hence, the allegations made in the plaint are all denied as false. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

16. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, one of the son of plaintiff examined as PW.1 and produced Ex.P.1 to 75. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined her husband as DW.1.

17. The material on record clearly depicts that plaintiff has executed registered gift deed in favour of the defendant on 20.09.1975 is not in dispute. The only dispute is that plaintiff has executed gift deed without there being any consideration of love and affection between the plaintiff and defendant. The PW.1 stated on oath that he learnt that execution of gift deed as per Ex.P.1 from the deceased plaintiff-Padmavtibai herself. He has no personal knowledge about the execution of the registered gift deed by the deceased plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Therefore, question of deposing by PW.1 that there was no consideration of love and affection for the deceased plaintiff to execute the gift deed dated 20.09.1975 in favour of the defendant does not arise. The plaint averments clearly depicts that only contention urged by the plaintiff to challenge the validity of the gift deed Ex.P.1 is that there was no consideration of love and affection between the plaintiff and defendant.

29. Admittedly in the present case, the registered gift deed Ex.P.1 signed by the donor/plaintiff, attested by witnesses and donor specifically admitted the execution of the gift deed in favour of the defendant.

The registered gift deed can be said to be duly proved even if one of the attesting witnesses is not called for proving its execution. Since execution of registered gift deed Ex.P.1 is not denied by the plaintiff, question of proving would not arise.