O.S.No.6/2020 1Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
APKD000001712020
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST
WOMAN-CUM-VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, KADAPA.
Present:- Sri G.S. Ramesh Kumar,
Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences against Women- cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.
O.S.No. 6 / 2020
Gorla Suryanarayana. … Plaintiff
V/s.
1. Gorla Rajamma.
2. Gorla Ramachandraiah.
… Defendants.
This suit coming on 29.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri
K.S.Sudarsan Reddy, Advocate for Defendants, having heard on both sides and stood over for consideration till this day, and after perused the material papers on record, this court delivered the following:-
O.S.No.6/2020 2Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of gift deed dt.31.05.2019 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant as null and void and for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. The brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:-
a)The plaintiff is the elder son and the 2nd defendant is the younger son of of 1st defendant. The plaintiff is working at Tokyo for the last many years and he opened NRI account with the State Bank of
India, Main Branch, Kadapa city and has given Power of Attorney to his father G.Dasaraiah for operating his NRI account and he used to send lakhs of rupees to the above said account. The father of the plaintiff i.e.,
G.Dasaraiah used to withdraw the amounts and used to utilize the same for the welfare of the family and also purchased movable and immovable properties in the name of the plaintiff and also purchased number of properties in his name and first defendant. While so on 25.05.2000, the father of the plaintiff purchased four houses bearing
D.Nos.3/627, 3/628, 3/629 and 3/630 situated at Rajareddy Street,
O.S.No.6/2020 3Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
Kadapa City, Kadapa Municipal Corporation area with the funds sent by the plaintiff from one Shaik Mahaboob Basha and got registered in favour of the plaintiff and first defendant and invested an amount of
Rs.4,50,000/-, which was out of the money sent by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant, who is house wife, has no any source of income and she did not invest a single paisa for purchase of the above said houses.
Therefore , the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said four houses with all absolute rights and the first defendant is only name lender.
b)The 2nd defendant, who wanted to grab the plaint schedule property, which is part and parcel of the property purchased with the funds of the plaintiff, instigated the first defendant to execute a registered gift deed in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, on 31.05.2019, at the instigation of 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant has executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant pertaining to the houses bearing
D.Nos.3/629 and 3/630 situated at Rajareddy Street, Kadapa City and
Kadapa District under a registered sale deed dt.25.05.2000, which is a fraudulent one. The father of the plaintiff by name G.Dasaraiah died on 23.06.2018 and after his demise, the 2nd defendant stepped into the shoes of his father and was looking after the financial transactions of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant used to withdraw the amounts and lent the same to third parties viz., Y.G.Venkata Ramana and some others.
There was also mediation and in that mediation, the said Y.G.Venkata
O.S.No.6/2020 4Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
Ramana promised to repay the amount of Rs.68 lakhs instead of Rs.75 lakhs on or before 22.08.2018 and the said amount was also to be received by the plaintiff. Likewise, there are several money transactions held by the defendants No.1 and 2 and the amount to be payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
c)The defendants are in possession of educational certificates, registered documents of properties, jewellery and valuables etc., at D.No.20/801 upstairs near Saibaba Temple, Cooperative colony,
Kadapa city which both the defendants are liable to hand over the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and got issued legal notice on 05.09.2019, calling upon the defendants No.1 and 2 to cancel the gift deed dt.31.05.2019 and other reliefs. Thereafter, the defendants No.1 and 2 having received the said notice, got issued reply notice dt.23.29.2019 with false allegations denying the plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property and tried to sale the to the third parties to make unlawful gain and hence the plaintiff obliged to file the suit for declaration of his right and title and also for cancellation of gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.
3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement and the defendant No.2 filed adoption memo by adopting the written statement
O.S.No.6/2020 5Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
contents of the defendant No.1. The written statement filed by the defendant No.1 is as follows:-
i)The suit filed by the plaintiff is bad, unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and all are invented for the purpose of this case. The husband of the 1st defendant by name
G.Dasaraiah worked as Sub Inspector of Police, brought up the plaintiff, educated him by providing all necessities. Instead of looking after his mother with love and affection after the death of her husband, at her fag end of her life, the plaintiff is troubling and causing mental agony to her with all false, frivolous and vexatious claims. He is residing at
D.No.20/801 situated at Saibaba Temple, Cooperative colony, Kadapa and the plaintiff is making hectic efforts to evict her from the said house through his henchmen, followers and unsocial elements, thereby causing mental agony to her.
ii)The 1st defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.83 cents, an extent of Ac.0.93 cents and an extent of Ac.1.76 cents situated at Chennur mandal, Kadapa district having purchased the same under three different registered sale deed dt.26.03.1980, 16.05.1981 and 26.06.1982 respectively and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. She has also purchased
Ac.1.30 cents on 10.06.1996. Ac.0.50 cents on 30.09.1997 and she also has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 1st defendant is getting considerable income from and out of the said lands. Out of the
O.S.No.6/2020 6Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
income derived from the said land she has purchased house bearing
D.No.3/629 and 3/630 on 25.05.2000 under a registered sale deed. She has also purchased Ac.1.00 cents on 23.10.2004. The 1st defendant is having landed properties, getting income out of those properties and leading her life and arranged funds to the plaintiff while leaving for abroad. The plaintiff has left for Tokyo in the year 1995 and the said fact was suppressed by him in the plaint for extraneous considerations. The father of the plaintiff by name G.Dasaraiah during his life time, purchased an extent of Ac.1.33 cents under a registered sale deed dt.19.08.2010 and also purchased an extent of Ac.2.74 under a registered sale deed dt.14.07.2017. He has purchased the said landed properties from his savings through his employment, part of the income derived from the lands of the 1st defendant. The father of the plaintiff never utilized the amounts sent by the plaintiff from Tokyo. The father of the plaintiff G.Dasaraiah, being the kartha of the joint family has purchased vast properties in the name of the plaintiff and wife of the plaintiff from out of the joint family nucleus amount which include the amounts sent by the plaintiff and the details of the properties also submitted in the written statement stands in the name of the plaintiff in all six items as well as stands in the name of the wife of the plaintiff in four items as mentioned in the written statement.
iii)The defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property and gifted the same to defendant No.2 on 31.05.2019,
O.S.No.6/2020 7Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
the defendant No.2 accepted the said gift and has been in possession and enjoyment from the date of gift deed. The defendant has got absolute rights over the suit property and at her choice, gifted the same to defendant No.2 as he alone looking after her, the said gift deed is valid under law. The plaintiff did not raise any dispute for all these years during the life time of his father, having knowledge of what ever the properties purchased by the defendant No.1 and father of the plaintiff are their self acquired properties. After the death of the father, the plaintiff suspected him and made untenable and unwarranted allegations against the deceased father stating that his deceased father purchased the property in the name of defendant No.1 from the funds sent by him and humiliated the old aged mother / defendant No.1. The plaintiff also not attended to the cremations of his deceased father. However, after the death of his deceased father and the obsequies, a mediation was held and the plaintiff agreed to cooperate for the partition of the joint family properties purchased in the name of himself and his wife and after leaving for abroad, he issued the legal notice dt.05.09.2019 and the suitable reply also issued by the defendants on 23.09.2019. The plaintiff is not entitled for declaration as prayed in the suit and hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Based on rival contentions, the following issues have been framed for trial :-
O.S.No.6/2020 8Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
1. Whether the suit schedule property is absolute property of defendant No.1 or whether it was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 form the funds providing by the plaintiff with a understanding that the defendant No.1 is only a name lender ?
2. Whether the first defendant has absolute right to gift a suit schedule property to defendant No.2 vide gift deed dt.31.05.2019 ?
3. Whether the gift deed dt.31.05.2019 is liable to be cancelled?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property?
6. Whether the defendants are to be restrain from alienating the suit schedule property?
7. To what relief?
5.On behalf of plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 through him and on his behalf, one M.Sumathi is examined as P.W.2 and the Bank Manager of State Bank of India,
Main Branch Kadapa by name Madhusudhan Rao is examined as P.W.3 and through him, Ex.X.1 is marked. On the other hand, the defendants
No.1 & 2 are examined as D.Ws.1 & 2 respectively and Exs.B.1 to B.18 (Ex.B.5 skipped) marked on their behalf.
6.Heard on both sides. Perused the record.
O.S.No.6/2020 9Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
Issue NO.1 :-
1. Whether the the suit schedule property is absolute property
of defendant No.1 or whether it was purchased in the name
of defendant No.1 form the funds providing by the plaintiff
with a understanding that the defendant No.1 is only a name
lender ?
7.It is an admitted fact that the defendant No.1 is the mother of plaintiff and defendant No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff stayed at Tokyo by an employment. It is an an admitted fact that he opened NRI account with State Bank of India, Main Branch and given his Power of Attorney to his father Dasaraiah for operating NRI account at SBI, Main Branch, Kadapa.
8.Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is that he sent amount to his
NRI account, his father and defendant should purchased the movable and immovable properties in his name and also utilize the same for family expenses. Himself along with his deceased father and defendants agreed for the same. As per oral understanding, he used to send huge amount to his NRI account and by virtue of Power of Attorney, his father used to withdraw the huge amount from his account and purchased number of properties in his name and defendant No.1. He recently came to know that his father purchased house properties in his name and defendant No.1 bearing door Nos.3/627, 3/628 , 3/629 & 3/630 with the funds sent by him under registered sale deed. The Certified Copy of
O.S.No.6/2020 10Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
registered sale deed is Ex.A.1. The entire consideration for the purchase of above houses sent by him as such, he is an absolute owner of the above said houses and the defendant No.1 is only name lender as she is house wife having no source of income and she did not invest any amount for purchase of the above properties. Therefore, he is only an absolute owner of the above property and has been in possession and enjoyment for the same.
9.He also stated in his evidence that the defendant No.2 with an intention to grab the plaint schedule property which is part and parcel of the above said property instigated the defendant No.1 to execute a registered gift deed in his favour. Accordingly, the defendant
No.1 executed the gift deed on 31.05.2019 under Ex.A.2 pertaining to the houses bearing D.Nos.3/629 & 3/630 which is part of the property purchased under Ex.A.1. In fact, the defendant No.1 has no right, interest to gift away the same in favour of defendant No.2, as such, the
Ex.A.2 does not convey any right or title in favour of defendant No.2 and it is a fraudulent one.
10.He also stated that his father during his life time, used to lookafter his financial transactions, who was died on 23.06.2018. Under the above circumstances, he issued legal notice under Ex.A.3 dt.05.09.2019 to defendant Nos.2 & 3 for cancellation of Ex.A.2. They issued reply under Ex.A.4 on 23.09.2019, as such, the suit on hand for declaration of his right and title and also cancellation of Ex.A.2 gift deed
O.S.No.6/2020 11Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
and for permanent injunction not only restraining the defendant from interfering into the possession but also restraining them from alienation of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.
11.Whereas the P.W.2 is claimed herself as tenant of P.W.1. The
P.W.2 is the Manger, State Bank of India, Main Branch. According to him, the transactions of the Bank Account of P.W.1 is operating by his father till death including withdraws. Ex.A.7 is the Bank Statement but the account is different from Ex.X.1. The Ex.X.1 is scanned copy of Power of
Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of his father for operating the transactions from the year 1999. As per Ex.A.7, a sum of
Rs.13,50,000/- withdrawn from the account of P.W.1 on 25.05.2000.
12.The version of the D.W.1 is that she purchased an extent of
Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.23/1, Sivalapalli village under registered sale deed dt.16.05.1981 / Ex.B.6 and also purchased an extent of Ac.1.03 cents under registered sale deed dt.10.06.1996 / Ex.B.9 and purchased an extent of Ac.0.50 cents under registered sale deed dt.30.07.1997 /
Ex.B.7 and Ac.0.82¾ cents under registered sale deed dt.06.03.1980 /
Ex.B.8 and Ac.1.00 cents under registered sale deed dt.23.10.2004 /
Ex.B.12 and her husband purchased an extent of Ac.2.74 cents under registered sale deed dt.14.07.2008 / Ex.B.10 and also purchased an extent of Ac.1.33 cents under registered sale deed dt.19.08.2010 /
Ex.B.11. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbooks in the name of herself and her husband and they leased out the said lands and
O.S.No.6/2020 12Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
collecting the lease amount and after the death of her husband, the defendant No.2 is looking after the same. Accordingly, she is living independently along with 2nd defendant through the income from the above noted agriculture lands and never depending upon the money of the plaintiff.
13.She further deposed that in the year 2000, herself and plaintiff purchased four portions of the house jointly under Ex.A.1 /
Ex.B.15 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- out of which, she gave her part of consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- and as per subsequent understanding, she has taken the portions 3/629 & 3/630 and the plaintiff has taken 3/627 & 3/628 and he has no right and title over the suit schedule property i.e., 3/629 & 3/630. She also deposed that she executed gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 dt.31.05.2019 / Ex.B.16 for suit schedule property since she has been under care and custody of defendant No.2, who is looking after her welfare.
14.She also deposed that the plaintiff forcibly, highhandedly got canceled the above said gift deed through her on 13.09.2023 under
Ex.A.11 and obtained Registered Relinquishment deed in his favour for suit schedule property on 14.09.2023 under Ex.A.10. The 2nd defendant also adduced the evidence of himself as D.W.2 and stated that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property with her own income and is absolute owner of the same and she executed registered gift settlement deed in his favour for suit schedule property and he
O.S.No.6/2020 13Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
became owner of the said property, his mother defendant No.1 has no right to cancel the said gift settlement deed unilaterally and subsequently relinquished the same in favour of plaintiff. The same are came into existence during pendency of the suit and hence, he is an absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift and or settlement deed executed by the defendant No.1 for suit schedule property.
15.From the above discussed evidence, it is clear that the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under
Ex.A.1 / Ex.B.15 on 25.02.2000 itself in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 i.e., 19 years prior to issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff under Ex.A.3 dt.05.09.2019 that too after four months of execution of Ex.A.2 by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 under gift / settlement deed dt.31.05.2019. It is not known why the plaintiff kept mum for a long period of more than 19 years without questioning his father, who obtained the registered sale deed under
Ex.A.1 in the name of defendant No.1 and plaintiff and why the plaintiff has not taken any steps if really the defendant No.1 is only a name lender under Ex.A.1. What necessitated the father of the plaintiff to obtain the Ex.A.1 in the name of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff if really the entire property covered under Ex.A.1 purchased with an exclusive money of plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not taken any
O.S.No.6/2020 14Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
of the above steps during the life time of his father even subsequent to death of his father till the date of Ex.A.2.
16.Except the oral assertions, there is no any such agreement between the plaintiff and his father that the father of the plaintiff has to purchase the properties in the name of the plaintiff with the amount sent by the plaintiff to his NRI account under Ex.A.7 or Ex.X.1. The
Ex.X.1 shows that the plaintiff executed Power of Attorney under Ex.X.1 to deal with the money from the account of the plaintiff. More over, the account number in Ex.A.7 is also different from the account under
Ex.X.1 as admitted by the P.W.3 Bank Manager. Let it be whether the account number under Ex.X.1 and Ex.A.7 are different, but the Power of
Attorney once given to the father of the plaintiff, it amounts to permitting the father of the plaintiff to make transactions from the account of plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the purpose is to purchase movable and immovable properties in his name and also utilize the same for family expenses. When such is the case, the purchasing of property under Ex.A.1 by father of the plaintiff in the name of the defendant No.1 and plaintiff does not arise. More over, the version of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has no financial capacity is also ruled out as per admission of the P.W.1 in his evidence in cross examination that his mother owned landed property both at Chennuru and Sivalapalli villages to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents and his father also owned an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of land in and around Chennuru and Sivalapalli
O.S.No.6/2020 15Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
village and he also admitted that his father gifted some landed property to his daughter K.Jyothi in the year 2012. The D.W.1 also filed Exs.B.6 to B.12 copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to the properties of herself and her husband. More over, it is an admitted fact that father of the plaintiff cum husband of the D.W.1 worked as Sub Inspector of
Police and retired in the year 2001 i.e., after Ex.A.1. Under the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the D.W.1 has no source of income to purchase the property and she is only a name lender in Ex.A.1 though the plaintiff contended and filed Ex.A.11 and Ex.X.1 stating that his father drawn an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- from the account of the plaintiff on 25.05.2000, purpose of drawing the said amount is not known but it is as on the date of Ex.A.1. However, the total consideration under Ex.A.1 is only a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- but not
Rs.13,50,000/-, which shows that the father of the plaintiff drawn the said amount of Rs.13,50,000/- not only and exclusively to purchase the property covered under Ex.A.1.
17.Further the P.W.1 himself admitted in his evidence in cross examination that the Ex.A.1 in respect of four houses is in his favour and in favour of his mother and the recital that the sale consideration of
Rs.4,50,000/- was paid by him and his mother and as per Ex.A.1, both himself and his mother have got equal rights in the property and further admitted that there is no recital in Ex.A.1 that entire sale consideration was paid by him alone. In view of the above discussion and finding, it is
O.S.No.6/2020 16Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
explicited that the plaintiff failed to establish and prove that the property covered by Ex.A.1 purchased in the name of himself and defendant No.1 from the funds providing by plaintiff with an understanding that the defendant No.1 is only a name lender. On the other hand, the defendant established and proved that the defendant No.1 has her own source of income from the landed properties as well as her husband worked as
Sub Inspector of Police till the year 2001. Apart from the above, the recitals in Ex.A.1 registered sale deed also shows the defendant No.1 is not at all a name lender as she purchased the property along with the plaintiff covered under Ex.A.1, as such she is an absolute owner of the half of the property covered by Ex.A.1. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.
Issues No.2 to 6:-
2. Whether the first defendant has absolute right to gift a suit
schedule property to defendant No.2 vide gift deed
dt.31.05.2019 ?
3. Whether the gift deed dt.31.05.2019 is liable to be cancelled?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction to
restrain the defendants from interfering with the suit
schedule property?
6. Whether the defendants are to be restrain from alienating the suit schedule property?
O.S.No.6/2020 17Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
18.It is already found above in findings on issue No.1 that the defendant No.1 has an absolute right on the half of the property covered by Ex.A.1 as such, no doubt she is entitled to give the said property to defendant No.2 under Ex.A.2. Further, on perusal of Ex.A.2, the nomenclature of the document is settlement deed but not as gift deed.
Here, no doubt the registered settlement deed cannot be revoked. It is irrevocable document without any such condition. Even if admitting the version of the plaintiff and treated the said Ex.A.2 as gift deed but the revocation of the same by defendant No.1 i.e., unilateral revocation under Ex.A.11. However, on this point, the counsel for plaintiff relied on a citation reported in 2025 MHC.706. From the above Judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras, it is clear that the conditions under
Sec.23(1) of Senior Citizens Act need not be explicits but might be implied to held that such love and affection will be taken care of the beneficiary of the settlement deed or gift deed. In the event of neglecting the Senior Citizen, the settlement or gift is liable to be annulled. The cancellation of such settlement deed by the competent authority under Sec.23(1) of Upheld even in the absence of express maintenance clause in the document.
19.The above ratio of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand if the
Ex.A.2 taken as gift deed, it cannot be canceled unilaterally under
Ex.A.11 by defendant No.1 alone without the consent of defendant No.2
O.S.No.6/2020 18Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
or through court of law otherwise if the A.2 taken as a settlement deed, the cancellation of the same under Ex.A.11 without any such condition under Ex.A.2 for cancellation, cannot be revoked even if the defendant
No.1 wants to revoke it, it should be under the provisions of Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 before or and by the Competent Authority, who is
R.D.O. but here the Ex.A.11 a Registered Revocation Deed executed by the defendant No.1 before Sub Registrar but not as per provisions under
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Accordingly, the Ex.A.11 executed by the defendant No.1 revoking the Ex.A.2 and her execution of Ex.A.10 relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff are invalid in the eye of law.
The another curiacitic point for discussion is that the plaintiff filed the suit along with interlocutory application vide I.A.152/2020 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and they also restrained by the order of the court dt.14.02.2020 by way of ad-interim injunction and the said order is extended from time to time till now. Separate issues are also framed under issues No.5 and 6.
20.In contravention of the above said order of the Court, the
Ex.A.11 revocation deed executed by defendant No.1 on 13.09.2023 and also executed Ex.A.10 relinquishment deed on 14.09.2023 during pendency of the suit, it shows both the parties, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in utter disregard the order of the court, executed
Exs.A.10 & A.11 during pendency of the suit.
O.S.No.6/2020 19Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
21.In view of the afore said discussions, it is clear that the
Ex.A.2 dt.31.05.2019 executed by the defendant No.2 is valid as the defendant No.2 has absolute right to gift the property covered by Ex.A.1 in respect of her half share and the said gift / settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 is not liable to be canceled and thereby the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property as well as not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the suit schedule property and the question of restraining the defendants from alienation of the suit schedule property does not arise as it is prayed in the plaint only till disposal of the suit. Hence the above issues No.2 to 6 are answered.
22.Issue No.7: - To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Directly dictated to the Senior Assistant / Typist, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- G.S.Ramesh Kumar,
Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa.
O.S.No.6/2020 20Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff Defendants
P.W.1: G.SuryanarayanaD.W.1: G.Rajamma
P.W.2: M.Sumathi. D.W.2: G.Rama Chandraiah
P.W.3: Madhusudhan Rao, Manager, S.B.I., Main Branch, Kadapa.
Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:-
Ex.A.1: Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dt.25.05.2000, which is registered as Doc.No.2346/2000 executed by one Shaik
Mohammed Basha in favour of plaintiff and 1st defendant.
Ex.A.2: Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed dt.31.05.2019 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant which is registered as Doc.No.4137/2019.
Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice dt.05.09.2019.
Ex.A.4: Reply notice issued by the defendants No.1 and 2 to the plaintiff dt.23.09.2019.
Ex.A.5: Original Power of Attorney dt.06.01.2020 executed by P.W.1 in favour of G.Sreeram Krishna.
Ex.A.6: Valuation certificate.
Ex.A.7: Attested copy of Bank Statement of the plaintiff, SBI Bank.
Ex.A.8: Original GPA dt.02.03.2021 executed by P.W.1 in favour of
P.Sreenivasulu.
Ex.A.9: Original GPA dt.03.10.2022 executed by P.W.1 in favour of
G.Venkata Ramana.
Ex.A.10: Certified Copy of Relinquishment Deed dt.14.09.2023 which is registered as Doc.No.7257/2023.
Ex.A.11: Certified Copy of Revocation Deed dt.13.09.2023 which is registered as Doc.No.7256/2023.
O.S.No.6/2020 21Special Sessions Judge for trial of
Offences against Women-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa, dt.08.05.2026.
Exhibits marked through P.W.3:-
Ex.X.1: Attested scanned copy of Power of Attorney executed by Suryanarayana in favour of his father Dasaranna for operating the transactions of the account of Suryanarayana from the year 1999.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants:-
Ex.B.1: Certified Copy of Writ Petition No.85/2024 on the file of
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Exs.B.2 to B.4: Three photos showing the P.W.1 along with the police.
Ex.B.5: Skipped.
Ex.B.6: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt.16.05.1981.
Ex.B.7: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt.30.07.1997.
Ex.B.8: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt.26.03.1980.
Ex.B.9: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt,10.06.1996.
Ex.B.10: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt.14.07.2008.
Ex.B.11: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt.19.08.2010.
Ex.B.12: CC of Registration copy of sale deed dt.23.10.2004.
Ex.B.13: Pattadar passbook of D.1.
Ex.B.14: Pattadar Passbook of D.1.
Ex.B.15: Original registered sale deed dt.25.02.2000.
Ex.B.16: Original gift settlement deed dt.31.05.2019.
Ex.B.17: Attested copy of F.I.R.
Ex.B.18: Online copy of 1-B Namuna.
Intld/- G.S.R.K. VII A.D.J., Kadapa.