Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has contended that the appellant has no right to question either the gift deed or the sale deed. He contended that the appellant is not the legal heir of late Ramaiah Setty who was admittedly the owner of the suit property and hence he has no right to question either the gift deed made by the said Ramaiah Setty in favour of his wife Padmavathamma or the sale deed executed by Padmavathamma in favour of the plaintiff. He contended that the first respondent has been fighting litigation from the year 1977. According to the learned Counsel for respondent 1, there are four tenements in the suit property and in respect of two tenements there is no dispute and in so far as the remaining two tenements is concerned, one is in occupation of the appellant and another in the occupation of the respondent 2 and in this regard the first respondent had filed two suits for recovery of rents before the Court of Small Causes and in those two suits since the relationship was denied, the plaint was ordered to be returned and accordingly the first respondent brought the present suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. He contended that in so far as the second respondent is concerned, he did not dispute the fact that he was a tenant, but his claim is that he is a tenant under the appellant. He further contended that the second respondent has no grievance against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and hence he has not filed any appeal. It is only the appellant who was defendant 1 before the Trial Court has challenged the judgment and decree made by the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the fist respondent has contended that the suit property originally belonged to the deceased Ramaiah Setty who in his turn had gifted the property to one Padmavathamma, the vendor of the plaintiff and the said Padmavathamma in her turn has sold the same to the plaintiff. He contended that there is absolutely no basis for the appellant to say that there was a fraud played on the deceased by Padmavathamma who was none other than the wife of the said Ramaiah Setty. He also contended that the very fact that the deceased Ramaiah Setty had subsequently executed a rectification deed in favour of the said Padmavathamma would show that there was no fraud practised upon the deceased. He contended that though the donor Ramaiah Setty had been alive till the year 1979, he did not challenge the gift deed Ex. P-9 executed in favour of the above said Padmavathamma nor any of the legal heirs of the deceased Ramaiah Setty has challenged the said gift deed and that being so, the appellant who has no better right than that of the deceased Ramaiah Setty or any of his legal heirs cannot question the gift deed. He also contended that the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant do not affect the merits of the case of the appellant. He contended that the gift deed and the rectification deed stands proved from the circumstances placed on record and that, further the two documents Exs. P-1 and P-2 have been proved not only by examining the attestor, but also by the maker of the document viz., the above said Padmavathamma. He contended that the gift set up by the appellant in favour of his wife has not at all been proved by adducing any cogent evidence before the Trial Court. With regard to the plea of adverse possession taken by the appellant, he contended that the nature of possession of the appellant could only be regarded as permissive possession and in that view of the matter, the plea of adverse possession set up by the appellant is highly untenable. He concluded his argument by saying that the plaintiff has proved by the documentary and oral evidence placed on record that he is the absolute owner of the suit property while the appellant has failed to prove the plea taken by him in his written statement and hence the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

13. Then it was suggested to P.W. 5 in the cross-examination that they have got fabricated the gift deed Ex. P-9 at the time of ill-health of the deceased Ramaiah Setty and that the same had been obtained by playing fraud. Both these suggestions have been clearly denied by P.W. 5. It is relevant to note that the evidence of P.W. 5 that her husband has signed the gift deed Ex. P-9 and that one Seetharamaiah and her father P.W. 4 were the two attestors to the gift deed has not been seriously challenged in the cross-examination by the defence. That apart, it is relevant to note that in this case there is also a rectification deed Ex. P-10 which was subsequently executed by the deceased Ramaiah Setty in favour of P.W. 5. P.W. 5 has clearly spoken to this fact in her evidence. She has stated that as there was some difference in door number, the khatha could not be transferred to her name and she told this fact to her husband. Thereafter, her husband Ramaiah Setty got executed a rectification deed which is as per Ex. P-10. She has also stated that the rectification deed Ex. P-10 bears the signature of her husband as per Ex. P-10(a), (b), (c) and (d). After the said rectification deed was executed, the khatha was transferred her name. There appears to be no serious cross-examination on this point. Thus the evidence of P.W. 5 would show that subsequent to the execution of the gift deed, the executant had executed a rectification deed Ex. P-10 in the circumstances as stated above and this document Ex. P-10 further confirms the execution of the gift deed Ex. P-9 by the deceased in favour of P.W. 5. That apart, there is the evidence of P.W. 6 who has drafted the gift deed Ex. P-9. He has stated that he knew the deceased P. Ramaiah Setty and he had drafted the gift deed for Ramaiah Setty which is as per Ex. P-9. He has further stated that he had accompanied the deceased to the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the gift deed Ex. P-9 and identified the signature of the deceased as per Ex. P-(d). Thus P.W. 6 has clearly identified the signature of the executant of the gift deed Ex. P-9 as per Ex. P-9(d). As already noticed by me, P.W. 6 is an Advocate and an independent witness. There is no reason for P.W. 6 to come and depose falsely against the appellant. He has further stated in his cross-examination regarding the gift deed which reads thus:

14. P.W. 6 has further stated in his cross-examination that the deceased Ramaiah Setty was hale and healthy and he had lived for about 7-8 years even after the execution of the gift deed. He has clearly denied the suggestion that at the time of the execution of the gift deed Ex. P-9, the deceased Ramaiah Setty was not capable of understanding the things. It is to be seen therefore that in this case the signatures of the executant as well as the attestor P.W. 4 to the gift deed Ex. P-9 stands proved from the evidence on record. Besides, the gift deed Ex. P-9 gets corroboration or support from the rectification deed Ex. P-10, which was subsequently executed by the deceased Ramaiah Setty. Therefore, in this case, the requirements of Section 69 are fully satisfied. Therefore, regarding the execution of the gift deed Ex. P-9, it has to be stated that when all the attestors to the gift deed having been dead, the gift deed can certainly be proved in the manner as provided for proof of a document. The evidence of P.W. 6 clearly proves the gift deed Ex. P-9. That apart, the subsequent execution of the rectification deed Ex. P-10 also substantially supports the proof of the execution of the gift deed by the deceased Ramaiah Setty. If really the gift deed Ex. P-9 had been obtained by practising fraud upon the deceased, it is difficult to believe that the deceased Ramaiah Setty could have subsequently executed the rectification deed Ex. P-10. The very fact that the deceased had subsequently executed a rectification deed and the very fact that the gift deed Ex. P-9 has not been challenged by the deceased during his life time or any of his legal heirs after his death, would confirm the execution of the gift deed in favour of P.W. 5. It is not in dispute that even after the execution of the gift deed, the deceased Ramaiah Setty was alive and he did not seem to have challenged the gift deed during his life time and on the contrary he went on to execute the rectification deed Ex. P-10. Even after his death, none of the legal heirs of the deceased who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased have challenged the gift deed Ex. P-9. Under the circumstances, therefore, the appellant who has no better right than the deceased himself or any of his legal heirs, cannot in my view challenge the execution of the gift deed in favour of P.W. 5. To conclude therefore, the gift deed Ex. P-9 stands proved by the direct evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and also indirectly by an admission made by the deceased himself in the form of rectification deed Ex. P-10 that has been subsequently executed in favour of P.W. 5 confirming the execution of the gift deed Ex. P-9.

Therefore, the gift deed Ex. P-9 and the rectification deed Ex. P-10 apart from proving the fact that P.W. 5 is the wife of the deceased, they would also prove that the suit property had been gifted by the deceased Ramaiah Setty in favour of P.W. 5 and the same has been accepted by her. It is not in dispute that the deceased Ramaiah Setty was an absolute owner of the suit property and he was quite competent to make a gift of the suit property to whomsoever he desire. The evidence of P.W. 6 as well as the evidence of P.W. 5 and the rectification deed Ex. P-10 would amply establish the fact that the gift deed Ex. P-9 was executed by the deceased when he was in full senses. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the gift deed Ex. P-9 is a result of fraud played upon the deceased by P.W. 5. It is to be concluded therefore that the deceased Ramaiah Setty who was the absolute owner of the suit property, had gifted the same to his own wife P.W. 5 under the gift deed Ex. P-9 and thus conferred an absolute right in her favour in respect of the suit property.