suit against defendants for declaration that Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 said to be executed by her mother Smt Seetharavamma is not valid and it does not bind on her and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.- It is also the contention of the plaintiff that as per law once the property is settled by executing a registered document, it cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her right and for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property.- the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by cancelling Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 executed by the mother of the plaintiff, Smt Seetharavamma, and granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against defendants.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRSENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B SYAMSUNDER
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1283 OF 2010
Between:
1. Moturu Narasimha Rao S/o. Late Sarangapani
R/o. Rayapudi Village
Thulluru mandal
Guntur District
2. Moturu Prabhakar Rao S/o. Late Sarangapani
R/o. Rayapudi Village
Thulluru mandal
Guntur District
3. Moturu Ratna Kumari @ Lakshmi Ratna Kumari W/o. Sambasiva Rao
R/o. Opp: to Mahendra and Mahendra Show Room
Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada
Krishna District
4. Moturu Krishna Rao S/o. Sambasiva Rao
R/o. Rayapudi Village
Thulluru Mandal
Guntur District
5. Moturu Rama Mohana Rao @ Chitti Babu S/o. Sarangapani
R/o. Rayapudi Village
Thulluru Mandal
Guntur District
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. Ponnam Padmavathi W/o. Late Seetha Ramaiah
Housewife
R/o. Rayapudi Village
Thalluru mandal
Guntur District
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): G VASANTHA RAYUDU
Counsel for the Respondents: E SAMBASIVA PRATAP
The Court made the following: ORDER
2023:APHC:51732
1
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
S.A.No.1283 OF 2010
Between:
1.Moturu Narasimha Rao, S/o.Late Sarangapani,
aged 62 years, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
2.Moturu Prabhakar Rao, S/o.Late Sarangapani,
aged 60 years, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
3.Moturu Ratna Kumari @ Lakshmi Ratna Kumari (Died)
W/o.Sambasiva Rao, aged 54 years, R/o.Opp. to
Mahendra and Mahendra Showroom,
Gollapudi village, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4.Moturu Krishna Rao, S/o.Late Sarangapani,
aged 55 years, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
5.Moturu Rama Mohana Rao @ Chitti Babu,
S/o.Late Sarangapani, aged 56 years,
R/o.Rayapudi village, Thulluru mandal,
Guntur District.
6.Moturu Ashok Babu, S/o.Late Sambasiva Rao,
aged 46 years, Private Service, R/o.H.No.22-11/3/11,
Indrani Towers, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi,
Vijayawada, NTR District.
7.Moturu Vijaya Babu, S/o.Late Sambasiva Rao,
aged 44 years, Self-Employed, R/o.H.No.22-11/3/11,
Indrani Towers, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi,
Vijayawada, NTR District.
(As per the Court Order, dated 22.08.2022, Appellant Nos.6 and 7
are brought on record as LRs of deceased-Appellant No.3, vide IA
No.3 of 2022 in SA No.1283 of 2010)
….Appellants/Defendants.
2023:APHC:51732
2
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Versus
Ponnam Padmavathi, W/o.Late Seetha Ramaiah,
aged 66 years, Housewife, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
….Respondent/Plaintiff.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.12.2023
2023:APHC:51732
3
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
________________________
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J
2023:APHC:51732
4
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
+ S.A.No.1283 OF 2010
% Dated 27.12.2023
# Between:
1.Moturu Narasimha Rao, S/o.Late Sarangapani,
aged 62 years, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
2.Moturu Prabhakar Rao, S/o.Late Sarangapani,
aged 60 years, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
3.Moturu Ratna Kumari @ Lakshmi Ratna Kumari (Died)
W/o.Sambasiva Rao, aged 54 years, R/o.Opp. to
Mahendra and Mahendra Showroom,
Gollapudi village, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4.Moturu Krishna Rao, S/o.Late Sarangapani,
aged 55 years, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
5.Moturu Rama Mohana Rao @ Chitti Babu,
S/o.Late Sarangapani, aged 56 years,
R/o.Rayapudi village, Thulluru mandal,
Guntur District.
6.Moturu Ashok Babu, S/o.Late Sambasiva Rao,
aged 46 years, Private Service, R/o.H.No.22-11/3/11,
Indrani Towers, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi,
Vijayawada, NTR District.
7.Moturu Vijaya Babu, S/o.Late Sambasiva Rao,
aged 44 years, Self-Employed, R/o.H.No.22-11/3/11,
Indrani Towers, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi,
Vijayawada, NTR District.
(As per the Court Order, dated 22.08.2022, Appellant Nos.6 and 7
are brought on record as LRs of deceased-Appellant No.3, vide IA
No.3 of 2022 in SA No.1283 of 2010)
….Appellants/Defendants.
2023:APHC:51732
5
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Versus
Ponnam Padmavathi, W/o.Late Seetha Ramaiah,
aged 66 years, Housewife, R/o.Rayapudi village,
Thulluru mandal, Guntur District.
….Respondent/Plaintiff.
! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Mr.A.V.Sivaiah
^ Counsel for the
Respondent : Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap
2023:APHC:51732
6
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. C.A.No.Nil/2022, (SC) dt.22.09.2022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8736/2016)
2. 2023 (6) ALT 251 (AP)
3. 2010 (15) SCC 207
4.2006 (6) ALT 523 (F.B)
This Court made the following:
2023:APHC:51732
7
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
SECOND APPEAL NO.1283 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
The defendants in O.S.No.319 of 2008 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri are the appellants. The
3
rd appellant/3rd defendant died during the pendency of the
appeal, due to that the appellant Nos.6 and 7 are added as her
legal representatives. The respondent is the plaintiff in the
suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the respondent
against the appellants, seeking declaration that Ex.A2/
Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 said to have
been executed by her mother Smt Seetharavamma is not valid
and legal, which not binding on her and for consequential
permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from in any
way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaint schedule property, which is an agricultural land to an
extent of Ac.1.03 ½ cents, out of Ac.2.83 cents in
D.No.110/E3 within the specific boundaries, situated at
Rayapudi village.
2023:APHC:51732
8
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
2. The appellants and the respondent hereinafter referred to
as defendants and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against defendants for
declaration that Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated
10.12.2003 said to be executed by her mother Smt
Seetharavamma is not valid and it does not bind on her and
for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the
defendants from in any way interfering with her peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is
the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4
and 5 are her brothers and the 3rd defendant is her sister-inlaw and parties are inter related. The plaintiff submits that one
Smt Moturi Seetharavamma is her mother who is the original
owner of the plaint schedule property, who acquired the same
under registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976 and said Smt
Seetharavamma resided in her house for a period of more
than 20 years upto November, 2003 and the plaintiff used to
look after her welfare with utmost love and affection. It is also
the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants never care
to look after the needs of their mother Smt Seetharavamma,
2023:APHC:51732
9
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
due to that Smt Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Registered
Settlement Deed, dated 27.10.1998 in her favour in respect of
the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.1.03 ½
cents out of Ac.2.83 ½ cents with lemon trees, keeping life
interest with her and vested remainder to the plaintiff, and the
plaintiff’s mother used to enjoy the usufructs by selling the
lemon crop every year. Since the execution of the Settlement
Deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants bore grudge
against the plaintiff’s mother and tried to disturb her
possession and enjoyment, due to that the mother of the
plaintiff also lodged a report before Thulluru Police Station.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were waiting for
an opportunity to grab the plaint schedule property and also
remaining extent of Ac.1.83 cents of land under suit survey
number, which belongs to Smt Seetharavamma, in the first
week of December, 2003 when Smt Seetharavamma went to
Rayapudi for selling the lemon usufructs, who fell sick, due to
her ill-health and when the plaintiff tried to get back her
mother, which is not allowed by the defendants, who died on
19.11.2004 at Rayapudi. The plaintiff submits that after the
2023:APHC:51732
10
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
death of her mother as per Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed,
dated 27.10.1998 she became absolute owner of the plaint
schedule property, she has been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the same, but recently the defendants are
proclaiming that Smt Seetharavamma cancelled Registered
Settlement Deed on 10.12.2003 by executing Registered
Cancellation Deed, which is created by the defendants, taking
advantage of ill-health of Smt Seetharavamma. The plaintiff
has specifically pleaded that Smt Seetharavamma is signatory,
but on Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, there are thumb
impression marks, which itself shows that fraud and coercion
played by the defendants. It is also the contention of the
plaintiff that as per law once the property is settled by
executing a registered document, it cannot be cancelled
unilaterally. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration
of her right and for permanent injunction in respect of plaint
schedule property.
4. The defendants have filed written statement, resisting
the claim of the plaintiff stating that the suit filed by the
plaintiff is barred by limitation and the 3rd defendant is not a
2023:APHC:51732
11
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
necessary party to the suit. They have stated that their mother
Smt Seetharavamma has voluntarily executed Registered
Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003, due to that the plaintiff
has no right to question the same after the death of her
mother, and the suit ought to have been filed during the life
time of Smt M.Seetharavamma. They also denied the
possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
They pray to dismiss the suit.
5. The trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the
following issues:-
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction
as prayed for?
3. To what relief”?
6. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1
and PW.2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On
behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as
DW.1, but no documents were marked.
7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by cancelling
2023:APHC:51732
12
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003
executed by the mother of the plaintiff, Smt Seetharavamma,
and granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff against defendants.
8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the
trial Court, the defendants have preferred AS.No.454 of 2009
on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court, Guntur, which
was dismissed by the first Appellate Court, confirming the
Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court.
9. In these circumstances, the present Second Appeal is
presented.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants
Mr.A.V.Sivaiah as well as learned Senior Counsel
Mr.Venugopal, representing Mr.E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned
Counsel for the respondent.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants would
submit that there is no dispute that the property originally
belongs to Smt Seetharavamma, mother of the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, who got the property under
Registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976, and thereafter Smt
2023:APHC:51732
13
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Settlement Deed in favour of
the plaintiff, keeping life interest, which itself shows that there
was no delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property
to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the document,
which also observed by the learned trial Judge. He would
further submit that as Smt Seetharavamma retained life
interest in the plaint schedule property, has not transferred
the property in favour of the plaintiff absolutely, due to that
she is entitled to execute Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed,
and thereafter she executed Registered WILL in favour of her
five sons on 16.12.2003, and she died on 19.11.2004. He
argued that Smt Seetharavamma was living with the 2nd
defendant and enjoying the property and the plaintiff has not
adduced any evidence to show that she has been in possession
and enjoyment of the property and granting permanent
injunction by the Courts below is erroneous. He further argued
that the observation of the learned trial Judge that ‘title follows
possession’ is erroneous, which has to be set aside. He prays
to allow the appeal.
2023:APHC:51732
14
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
12. The learned Senior Counsel, representing the
respondent/plaintiff would submit that there is no dispute with
regard to Smt Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Settlement
Deed in favour of the plaintiff and unilateral cancellation of
Ex.A1 is not valid under law, which rightly held by the Courts
below. He would further submit that Ex.A1 is a Gift Deed, as it
was executed by Smt Seetharavamma in favour of her
daughter out of love and affection. When any gift is executed
in respect of any property within the family members, it is
called as ‘settlement deed’, and if the property is given to any
third party out of love and affection, it will be called as ‘gift
deed.’ He would further submit that under Ex.A1, there was
absolute transfer of plaint schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff and the ‘principle of possession follows title’ is rightly
applicable to the facts of the present case. He relied on the
following precedent law:
1) Renikuntla Rajamma (Died) by LRs vs.
K.Sarwanamma. Civil Appeal No.4195 of 2008, Judgment
dated 17.07.2014 SC, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at
Para Nos.17, 18 and 19, which reads as under:
2023:APHC:51732
15
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
“17. We are in respectful agreement with the statement of law
contained in the above passage. There is indeed no provision in law
that ownership in property cannot be gifted without transfer of
possession of such property. As noticed earlier, Section 123 does
not make the delivery of possession of the gifted property essential
for validity of a gift. It is true that the attention of this Court does
not appear to have been drawn to the earlier decision rendered in
Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker (supra) where this Court had
on a reading of the recital of the gift deed and the cancellation deed
held that the gift was not complete. This Court had in that case
found that the donee had not accepted the gift thereby making the
gift incomplete. This Court, further, held that the donor cancelled
the gift within a month of the gift and subsequently executed a Will
in favour of the appellant on a proper construction of the deed and
the deed cancelling the same this Court held that the gift in favour
of the donee was conditional and that there was no acceptance of
the same by the donee. The gift deed conferred limited right upon
the donee and was to become operative after the death of the
donee. This is evident from the following passage from the said
judgment:
"7. It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered
gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the property,
together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is
divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute
owner of the property. The question is whether the gift in
question had become complete under Section 123 of the TP
Act? It is seen from the recitals of the gift deed that Motilal
Gopalji gifted the property to the respondent. In other words,
it was a conditional gift. There is no recital of acceptance nor
is there any evidence in proof of acceptance. Similarly, he
had specifically stated that the property would remain in his
possession till he was alive. Thereafter, the gifted property
would become his property and he was entitled to collect
mesne profits in respect of the existing rooms throughout his
life. The gift deed conferred only limited right upon the
respondent-donee. The gift was to become operative after
the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the
right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he
would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. It would thus
be seen that the donor had executed a conditional gift deed
and retained the possession and enjoyment of the property
during his lifetime....."
2023:APHC:51732
16
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
18. The above decision clearly rests on the facts of that case. If the
gift was conditional and there was no acceptance of the donee it
could not operate as a gift. Absolute transfer of ownership in the
gifted property in favour of the donee was absent in that case which
led this Court to hold that the gift was conditional and had to
become operative only after the death of the donee. The judgment
is in that view clearly distinguishable and cannot be read to be an
authority for the proposition that delivery of possession is an
essential requirement for making a valid gift.
19. In the case at hand as already noticed by us, the execution of
registered gift deed and its attestation by two witnesses is not in
dispute. It has also been concurrently held by all the three courts
below that the donee had accepted the gift. The recitals in the gift
deed also prove transfer of absolute title in the gifted property from
the donor to the donee. What is retained is only the right to use the
property during the lifetime of the donor which does not in any way
affect the transfer of ownership in favour of the donee by the
donor”.
2) Syamala Raja Kumari and others vs. Alla
Seetharavamma and another. 2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 40 AP,
Judgment dated 02.01.2017, wherein the learned Single
Judge of this Court held that when life interest is retained in
the gift deed, the said document makes it clear that it is not at
all a Will and it is only a gift deed and what was retained by
the donor is right to enjoy the property till his death and
similarly, his wife also was enjoyed the property till her death.
The learned Single Judge followed the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Renikuntla Rajamma case referred supra
at Para No.11, which reads as under:
2023:APHC:51732
17
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
“11. In the present situation, a case of Renikuntla Rajamma (died)
by L.Rs vs. K.Sarwanamma. 2014 AIR (SC) 2906 is relevant
whereby held that the recitals in the gift deed also prove transfer of
absolute title in the gifted property from the donor to the done.
What is retained is only the right to use the property during the life
time of the donor, which does not in any way affect the transfer of
ownership in favour of the donee by the donor”.
3) Nakka Parthasarathy vs. Nakka Krishnaveni and
another. AS No.760 of 1999, Judgment dated 02.04.2013 AP
High Court, wherein it is held that when the gift was made
voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence, it cannot
be revoked by the executant, on the ground that beneficiaries
under the gift were not looking after him properly and
revocation deed is null and void.
4) Tummidi Bala Nagamani vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
District Registrar, Joint Sub Registrar, Tummidi Prasanna
Mahalakshmi. 2022 Law Suit (AP) 1210, Judgment dated
29.09.2022, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court
followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Thota Ganga Lakshmi and Another vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and another. 2010 15 SCC 207, which discussed Rule
26 (i)(k)(i) of Rules made under the Registration Act, 1908 by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is also
discussed the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
2023:APHC:51732
18
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Yanala Malleshwari and others vs. Ananthula Sayamma and
others. 2006 6 ALD 623 (FB) and held that unilaterally
cancellation of gift deed is violative of Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) of Rules
framed under the Registration Act by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh.
13. The learned Counsel for the appellants would also submit
that additional evidence produced by the appellants, which are
revenue records not considered by the Appellate Court and
erroneously dismissed the petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of
CPC.
14. For which, the learned Counsel for the respondent/
plaintiff would submit that the Appellate Judge has given
elaborately reasoning for dismissing the additional evidence
petition, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, which needs no interference.
15. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law, which were raised at Ground
No.12 (a) and (b), which reads as under:
“a).Whether the settlement deed reserving life estate to
the executant is to be considered as a Will and whether
the executant has got the power to modify or cancel the
2023:APHC:51732
19
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
settlement deed during her life time and whether the
beneficiary under the settlement deed would acquire
rights on the property which cannot be revoked by the
executant during her life time?
b).Whether the cancellation of the settlement deed is a
voidable document if it is not coming within any of
grounds contemplated under Sections 13 to 23 of the
Indian Contract Act”?
16. As per Section 100 of CPC, this Court can interfere with
the Judgment of the Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case
involves a substantial question of law.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased)
Through LRs. And Others – Appellants vs. Saraswati and
Others – Respondent(s) in Civil Appeal No.NIL of 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8736 of 2016) Judgment dated
22.09.2022, explained the scope of Section 100 of CPC and
laid down the principles relating to Section 100 of CPC at Para
No.33 of the Judgment, which reads as under:
"33. The principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC relevant for
this case may be summarised thus:
(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a
document is question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a
document is a question of law. Construction of a document
involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of
law. Therefore, when there is a misconstruction of a document or
2023:APHC:51732
20
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
wrong application of a principle of law in constructing a document,
it gives rise to a question of law. (Emphasis supplied)
(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves
a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A
question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the
case (that is, a question, answer to which effects the rights of
parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not
covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle
emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal
issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary
situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of
express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the Court
below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to
such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial
question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but
because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the
settled position of law.
(iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere
with findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. But it is not an
absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i)
the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no
evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved
facts by applying law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly
cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no
evidence," it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth
of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken
as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
18. It is not in dispute that originally the plaint schedule
property and other property in the same survey number
belong to Smt Seetharavamma, who is the mother of the
plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, who got the
property under the Registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976. It is
also not in dispute that during her life time, Smt
Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed
in favour of the plaintiff by settling the plaint schedule
2023:APHC:51732
21
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
property out of love and affection, as the plaintiff is no other
than her daughter. Section 2 (24) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 defines Settlement Deed, which reads as under:
“(24) Settlement:-- “Settlement” means any non-testamentary
disposition, in writing, of movable or immovable property (whether
by way of declaration of trust or otherwise) made—
(a) in consideration of marriage;
(b) for the purpose of distributing property of the settler
among his family or those for whom he desires to provide, or
for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on
him; or
(c) for any religious or charitable purpose;
and includes an agreement in writing to make such a
disposition [and, where any such disposition has not been made in
writing, any instrument recording, whether by way of declaration of
trust or otherwise, the terms of any such disposition].
19. As rightly held by the learned Appellate Judge that
“settlement” means any non-testamentary disposition, in
writing in respect of movable or immovable property, which
has done in the present case. A perusal of contents of Ex.A1,
which makes it clear that mother, gave immovable property to
her daughter out of love and affection. It is also recited in
Ex.A1 that the executant can enjoy the usufruct only and she
has no right to sell the property during her life time, which the
plaintiff can took possession and after the death of the
2023:APHC:51732
22
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
executant, and then enjoy with absolute rights. The recitals of
document, which attracts the definition of Section 122 of the
Transfer of Property Act, which defines the “gift”, which reads
as under:
“Gift” defined. – Gift is the transfer of certain existing
moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and
without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to
another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the
donee.
Acceptance when to be made.—Such acceptance
must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is
still capable of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
20. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Renikuntla Rajamma case referred supra relied on by the
learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff as per Section
123 of the Transfer of Property Act does not make the delivery
of possession of the gifted property essential for validity of a
gift. As rightly held by the Courts below that delivering Ex.A1/
registered document by the executant to the plaintiff itself
amounts to an acceptance and retaining life interest to enjoy
usufructs alone will not make the gift invalid. When once the
gift is complete and accepted by the plaintiff and when gift is
2023:APHC:51732
23
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
not without any condition or stipulation of cancellation, it
cannot be unilaterally revoked, as rightly held by the Courts
below. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Srigiri
Venkata Ramanamma (Died) as LRs and others vs. Srigiri Sri
Venkateswara Rao1
also considered similar issue and held that
unilateral cancellation of Gift Deed is not valid and when no
specific condition for revocation has been made in the deed,
the Gift cannot be revoked. The learned Single Judge also
discussed Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, which
provision gives the instances when a gift can be revoked or
suspended and followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi and another vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and another 2 which not
approved view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Yanala
Maheswari vs. Ananthula Sayamma.
3 When once the gift is
completed, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled.
21. It is also not the contention of the defendants that the
plaintiff not allowed the executant to enjoy the usufruct. The
1
2023 (6) ALT 251 (AP)
2
2010 (15) SCC 207
3
2006 (6) ALT 523 (F.B)
2023:APHC:51732
24
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Courts below have rightly held that execution of Ex.A2/
cancellation of Ex.A1 is not legal and it is not valid, which does
not bind the plaintiff. The learned Appellate Judge rightly
rejected the petition filed by the defendants under Order 41,
Rule 27 of CPC, as those are Revenue records, which are
basing on alleged WILL said to be executed by Smt
Seetharavamma in their favour and when Smt
Seetharavamma herself has no right to cancel Ex.A1/
Settlement Deed, any document said to be executed by Smt
Seetharavamma are not valid under law, and any mutations
effected in the Revenue records in pursuance of those
documents are also not valid. The learned Appellate Judge also
held that Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed obtained by
coercion, but erroneously held that ‘title follows possession’
instead of ‘possession follows title’, that itself is not a ground
to reject the equitable relief of permanent injunction sought by
the plaintiff, in view of principle of ‘possession follows title’, as
she is able to prove that Ex.A1 executed by her mother and
Ex.A2/cancellation of Ex.A1 is not valid under law.
2023:APHC:51732
25
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
22. Basing on material and evidence, both Courts rightly
appreciated the evidence, and decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiff.
23. In these circumstances, finding no such questions that
require consideration in this Second Appeal, much less
substantial question of law, or appreciation of evidence as
pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, this
Second Appeal has to be dismissed.
24. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear
their own costs. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The Interim Orders
granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.
___________________________
JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
Dt:27.12.2023.
Bsv
2023:APHC:51732
26
BSS,J
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
S.A.No.1283 of 2010
Date: 27.12.2023
Bsv
2023:APHC:51732
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.