Dr Anirudh V vs Annaiah N M on 6 April, 2026
In my humble view, the principles of this cited
decision of SN Leelavathi case is aptly applicable to the
present suit. In the present suit, defendant no. 5/DW1
also sought for the counterclaim, claiming the share in
165
O.S.No. 1990/2018
the properties mentioned as Item No. 1 to 6 of counter-
claim of defendant no. 4, 6 and 7. Admittedly, except the
gift deed executed by defendant no. 1 in her favour with
respect to item no. 5, she is not signatory to remaining
gift deeds executed by defendant No. 1 and plaintiff no.2.
The defendant No. 6 and 7 who are also filed the
counterclaim claiming the share in these properties also
not signatory to any of the gift deeds under challenge.
During the course of cross-examination of DW2 by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff, no point is elicited from
his mouth to suggest that he was aware of the Ex.D8 and
Ex.D21 gift deeds of the year 2004 itself. No doubt in his
cross-examination, he has admitted the dates of the gift
deed mentioned in Ex.D8 and Ex.D21. When question
asked to him regarding putting of signature by his father
to these gift deeds, then he answered that when he
asked defendant no.1 and 2 regarding the signature of
defendant no. 4, then defendant no. 1 and 2 told him that
it was done purely to obtain a loan to build a house. DW2
has deposed that the defendant no. 1 and 2 told him that
properties can only be partitioned and not to be gifted.
Since there is no evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to
166
O.S.No. 1990/2018
show that DW1 and DW2 knowing very well regarding
execution of Ex.D8 and 21 kept silent even after 3 years
without challenging the same, under such circumstances,
it cannot be held that the the gift deeds as per Ex.D8 and
21 challenging the same is barred by period of limitation.
Even though there is a signature of defendant No. 4 in
these 2 gift deeds, since defendant No. 5 to 7 are not
signatories to these gift deeds, it cannot be held, the
counter-claim prayer of defendant no. 4, 6, 7 praying to
declare gift deeds are not binding on them is barred by
limitation. In my humble view, the decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Hon'ble Apex court in
Civil Appeal No. 5180/2025, Civil Appeal No. 14807/2024,
civil Appeal No. 11061/ 2024 can be distinguished on
facts. In view of my finding on Issue no. 1 to 3, 8, 15 and
16, as this court of the view that the counterclaim Item
No. 1 to 6 of schedule of Defendant No. 4, 6 and 7 are the
ancestral and joint family properties, the defendant no. 1
and plaintiff No. 2 being the coparceners of their
undivided coparcenary interest has no power or authority
to gift the properties. Hence I answered Issue No. 4, 5, 6,
7 and 9 in the affirmative.