Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.34 of 2000, are as under:

The plaintiff's mother's brother by name Kasani Venkata Subbaiah, who was the owner of the plaint schedule property, executed a gift deed in respect of plaint schedule property on 27.03.1984, (an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated in S.No.223 of Vadlamudi village) out of love and affection in favour of the plaintiff with absolute rights, where under he conveyed vested remainder rights to him reserving life interest for himself (Kasani Venkata Subbaiah), that the gift deed was delivered to him and the gift deed was accepted and acted upon though the delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property was postponed till the death of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah, that after the death of Venkata Subbaiah on 04.08.1998, he came to know that Kasani Venkata Subbaiah without any manner of right, executed a document styled as 'gift cancellation deed' on 24.07.1995 as per the original of Ex.A2, that when he tried to occupy the plaint schedule property after the demise of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah, the defendants prevented him from taking possession of the schedule property and that thereafter, he got issued legal notices to the defendants 1 to 5 and filed the suit.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property?

4. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

13. Point No.1:

Whether the registered gift settlement deed dated 27.03.1984 said to have been executed by late Kasani Venkata Subbaiah in favour of plaintiff is true and valid?

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Kasani Venkata Subbaiah and he is the sister's son of the said Venkata Subbaiah. He further pleaded that on account of love and affection towards him, the said Kasani Venkata Subbaiah executed a registered gift settlement deed on 27.03.1984 where under he conveyed vested remainder rights to him reserving life interest for himself and the same is accepted by donee. He further pleaded that the said gift deed is accepted and acted upon and in view of the recitals of gift settlement deed, the possession of the property is postponed till the death of Venkata Subbaiah. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said Kasani Venkata Subbaiah died on 04.08.1998 and on his death as per the recitals of gift deed he is entitled to take possession of the plaint schedule property as a right. The case of the defendants is that plaintiff obtained Ex.A1 registered gift settlement deed by playing a fraud. The execution of Ex.A1 registered gift settlement deed is not at all disputed by the defendants, but the contention of the defendants is that the said gift settlement deed is obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud. The defendants relied on Ex.B6 registration extract of cancellation deed dated 24.07.1995 said to have been executed by Venkata Subbaiah by cancelling the earlier Ex.A1 registered gift settlement deed. In Ex.B6 it was clearly admitted by Kasani Venkata Subbaiah that he executed Ex.A1 registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff by retaining life interest with him and vested remainder rights to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is none other than the son of his own sister. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the son of sister of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah. Kasani Venkata Subbaiah had no children, he died issueless. Defendants 1 to 3 are the grand sons of his younger brother by name Veeraiah and sons of Malleswara Rao. Defendants 4 and 5 are the grand sons of Veeraiah and sons of Prasad. The execution of registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff is clearly admitted by Kasani Venkata Subbaiah in Ex.B6. But it was recited in Ex.B6 cancellation deed that when he came to Sub-Registrar office on 27.03.1984 in connection with execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff obtained the signatures on the gift settlement deed by playing fraud and he obtained his signatures on the gift settlement deed along with the said registered sale deed. Since the execution of Ex.A1 gift settlement deed is not in dispute, it is for the defendants to prove that Ex.A1 was obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud.

14. The plaintiff in order to prove the case of the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. PW2 is one of the attestor in Ex.A1. PW3 is scribe of Ex.A1.

15. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence affidavit as PW1. To prove the Ex.A1 will, the plaintiff examined one of the attestor in Ex.A1 gift settlement deed as PW2. He deposed in his evidence that the plaintiff is the sister's son of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah and Kasani Venkata Subbaiah on account of love and affection towards plaintiff executed a registered gift deed on 27.03.1984, where under he conveyed vested remainder rights to the plaintiff reserving life interest for himself. He further deposed that at the time of execution of the said gift settlement deed himself, Yanumula Venkata Swamy were present. Kasani Venkata Subbaiah executed the gift settlement deed, signed the same and got it registered. He further deposed that himself and Venkata Swamy attested the said gift settlement deed and himself and Venkata Swamy witnessed about the making signature by the Kasani Venkata Subbaiah in the gift settlement deed, likewise, the scribe also witnessed the attestation of both the attestors. He further deposed that the scribe of the gift deed also put his signature being the scribe on the gift settlement deed.

36. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the alleged registered cancellation deed said to have been executed by Kasani Venkata Subbaiah is a void document and it is not valid, accordingly, the point No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

37. Point No.3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property?

It was held on point No.1 that the donor Kasani Venkata Subbaiah validly executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff by reserving life interest with him and vested remainder rights to the plaintiff. The same is accepted by the donee. As stated supra, the said registered gift settlement is duly proved by the plaintiff as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. It was also held in point No.2 that the donor Venkata Subbaiah unilaterally cancelled the said registered gift settlement deed after a lapse of 11 years from the date of execution of gift settlement deed without issuing any notice to the done, therefore, the said cancellation deed is non est and meaningless transaction. The contention of the defendants is that the Kasani Venkata Subbaiah executed a will on 05.06.1996 bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants. As stated supra, the date of will is 05.06.1996. 12 years prior to alleged Ex.B7 will, the Kasani Venkata Subbaiah executed a gift settlement deed on 27.03.1984 by retaining life interest with him and by giving vested remainder rights to the plaintiff and the said Kasani Venkata Subbaiah died in the year 1998. Therefore, the plaintiff is having absolute rights in the plaint schedule property and the Kasani Venkata Subbaiah has no right to transfer the ownership in the plaint schedule property by way of executing a will in favour of the defendants. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants. The plaintiff also entitled mesne profits as ordered by the trial Court till the date of delivery of possession. Accordingly, this point is answered.