Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KAKINADA
Present: Nikitha R.Vora
VI Addl. District Judge, Kakinada
Wednesday, the 9th day of April, 2025
O.S.No.186/2018
Between:
1.Adireddy Veera Venkata Satya Prasad, S/o Anjaneyulu, 56 years, RTC employee, resident of D.No.7-131, Ravindranagar, Turangi. Kakinada Mandal.
2.Adireddy Veera Venkata Surya Prakash, S/o Anjaneyulu, 46 years, RTC employee, resident of D.No.59-20-6/3, Sri Satyadevi Nagar, Road No.1C, Behind APT, Jagannaickpur,Kakinada
Mandal... Plaintiffs.
AND
1.Adireddy Subbayamma, W/o Anjaneyulu, 75 years, Housewife, resident of D.No.7-131, Ravindranagar, Turangi. Kakinada Mandal.
2.Adireddy Sateesh, S/o Anjaneyulu, 41 years, RTC employee, resident of D.No.7-131, Ravindranagar,
Turangi. Kakinada Mandal. .. Defendants.
This suit came on 20.03.2025 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri K.V.V.Chalapathi, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri 1 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
K.Tataraju, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaring 1. that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are vested reminder holders of undivided unspecified 2/3rd share in Item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction against the defendants; to declare that the document dated 11.12.2012 vide document No.11713/2012 executed by the 1st defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs; to declare that the document dated 22.08.2014 vide document No.4730/2014 executed by the 1st defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs; to declare that the document dated 17.10.2016 vide document No.11029/2016 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs; to grant consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs right over the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2.
a)The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are children of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant is owner of plaint schedule properties having purchased the same in the year 1974 and 1983 under two registered sale deeds vide document Nos.1694/1974 and 354/1983 respectively. Since the date of purchase, the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, on 18.07.2007, the 1st defendant had executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.3559/2007 of SRO, Samarlakota with respect to Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, where under, the 1st defendant had retained life interest over the schedule property for herself and given vested reminder to plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. Likewise, the 1st defendant executed another registered gift settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 vide document No.7937/2007 of SRO, Kakinada with respect to 2 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, where under, the 1st defendant had retained life interest over the schedule property for herself and given vested reminder to plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. By virtue of said settlement deeds, the plaintiffs are owners of undivided unspecified 2/3rd share of the plaint schedule property. Since the 1st defendant is no other than the mother of the plaintiffs, they have not suspected her and left the original documents with her. The 2nd defendant is living with the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are living separately from the defendants.
b)The plaintiffs further submit that while things stood thus, on 22.03.2018, the plaintiffs received a call from Tahsildar, Samarlakota
Mandal with regard to enquiry about a gift deed executed in favour of 2nd defendant for the land covered by Item No.1 of the plaint schedule.
Surprisingly for the first time, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 came to know that the 1st defendant had unilaterally cancelled the two settlement deeds dated 18.07.2007 under a cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 vide document
No.11713/2012 of SRO, Kakinada concerning the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. Further, it was also brought to knowledge of the plaintiffs that another cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 vide document
No.4730/2014 of SRO, Sarpavaram was executed by the 1st defendant concerning the item No.1 of the plaint schedule. Further, it was also brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendants have collusively brought into existence of a document styled as gift deed dated 17.10.2016 vide document No.11029/2016 of SRO, Kakinada, under the said document, it is alleged that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is gifted to 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant basing on the alleged document applied to the Tahsildar, Samarlakota
Mandal for issue of passbooks in his favour and the said Tahsildar having got a doubt about the genuineness of the document called upon the plaintiffs and enquired about their knowledge and consent for the 3 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
cancellation deeds and their willingness to issue passbooks in favour of the 2nd defendant. On that the plaintiffs have given their objections in writing to the Tahsildar, Samarlakota Mandal and he had received the said objections.
The alleged documents are brought into existence without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and they are collusive documents and they are bad in law. The alleged documents brought into existence to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and the same are not enforceable under Law. On that the plaintiffs got issued legal notices dated 07.04.2018 and 05.05.2018 to the defendants, but, they failed to comply the demand of the plaintiffs.
Hence, the suit.
The defendants contested the suit and the 1st defendant filed written 3. statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant, denying the averments of the plaint. The defendants admitted the relationship between the parties.
The 1st defendant admitted that she was owner of the plaint schedule properties which were purchased by her under two registered sale deeds in the year 1974 and 1983 and she owned another Ac.1-05 cents in old
S.No.46/1-1 and new S.No.51/1 and old S.No.46/1-2 and new S.No.51/2 of an extent of Ac.1-05 cents out of Ac.2-10 cents of Turangi Village of
Kakinada Rural which she purchased on 12.07.2000 from Pagullapati
Venkateswararo under registered document bearing No.4280/2000. The 1st defendant admitted the execution of gift deed dated 18.07.2007 in favour of her three sons by retaining life interest and to enjoy the income from the property till her lifetime. But, she contends that the said gift settlement was not accepted by her sons and she is in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. She further contended that as she retained life interest over the schedule properties, the plaintiffs did not accept the gift and therefore, they do not have any right to question about the cancellation of the said document. She further contended that till her lifetime, the said gift does not become complete and the title remained with her and she can cancel the same at any time. She further contended that she executed the 4 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
above said gift settlement deeds by retaining life interest with an impression and hope that her three sons would look after her till her lifetime.
Thereafter, the 1st defendant waited and watched her sons for five years, but as none of them took care of the 1st defendant, and did not keep up their promise and assurance, she got executed cancellation deeds. She further contended that they even stopped paying rents and even visiting the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant contends that she was suffering with cardiac problem and health related problems and except the schedule properties she do not have any source of income and as her three sons stopped paying rents and providing any money towards her medical expenditure she was constrained to cancel the gift settlement deeds. While so, when she was suffering with starvation and ill-health, the 2nd defendant and his wife took pains to take care of her and provided her good food and medical assistance.
At present, the 1st defendant is leading comfortable life under the shadow of the 2nd defendant and his family members and hence, out of love and affection, she gave Ac.0-50 cents of land i.e., Item No.1 of the schedule property by way of gift deed dated 17.10.2016 to the 2nd defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for 4. trial:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are vested reminder holders of undivided unspecified 2/3rd share in Item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the document dated 11.12.2012 bearing No.11713/2012 executed by the 1 st defendant is not valid and binding on 5 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the document dated 22.08.2014 bearing No.4730/2014 executed by the 1 st defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the document dated 17.10.2016 bearing document
No.11029/2016 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
6. To what relief?
During the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined PW1 and PW2 and 5. got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On the other hand, the defendants got examined as DW1 to DW5 and no documents were got marked on their behalf.
Heard both sides. 6.
ISSUE NOS.1 to 4:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are vested reminder holders of undivided unspecified 2/3rd share in Item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the document dated 11.12.2012 bearing No.11713/2012 executed by the 1 st defendant is not valid and binding on 6 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the document dated 22.08.2014 bearing No.4730/2014 executed by the 1 st defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declamation that the document dated 17.10.2016 bearing document
No.11029/2016 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
As the Issues 1 to 4 are inter connected with each other, hence, they 7. are discussed together.
The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant 8. are children of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties which she purchased under two registered sale deeds bearing No.1694/1974 and 354/1983 and since then she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, on 18.07.2007, the 1st defendant executed two registered gift settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant by retaining life interest over the properties under document No.3559/2007 and 7937/2007 in respect of
Item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties respectively. The plaintiffs further submit that by virtue of said settlement deeds, the plaintiffs acquired undivided 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. While things stood so, the 1st defendant got unilaterally executed cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 under document No.11713/2012 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, she again unilaterally executed another cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 bearing document
No.4730/2014 in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property.
Thereafter, the 1st defendant executed a gift deed dated 17.10.2016 bearing 7 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
Doc.No.11029/2016 bequeathing item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs were not aware about the said cancellation deeds till 22.03.2018, when they got a call from Tahsildar,
Samarlakota Mandal with regard to enquiry about mutation of records.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs gave written objections before the Tahsildar,
Samarlkota Mandal. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got issued registered legal notices dated 07.04.2018 and 05.05.2018 to the defendants, but as the defendants failed to issue any reply, they got filed the present suit.
On the other hand, the 1st defendant filed written statement which 9. was adopted by the 2nd defendant, denying the averments of the plaint. The defendants admitted the relationship between the parties. The 1st defendant admitted that she was owner of the plaint schedule properties which were purchased by her under two registered sale deeds in the year 1974 and 1983 and she owned another Ac.1-05 cents in old S.No.46/1-1 and new
S.No.51/1 and old S.No.46/1-2 and new S.No.51/2 of an extent of Ac.1-05 cents out of Ac.2-10 cents of Turangi Village of Kakinada Rural which she purchased on 12.07.2000 from Pagullapati Venkateswararo under registered document bearing No.4280/2000. The 1st defendant admitted the execution of gift deed dated 18.07.2007 in favour of her three sons by retaining life interest and to enjoy the income from the property till her lifetime. But, she contends that the said gift settlement was not accepted by her sons and she is in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. She further contended that as she retained life interest over the schedule properties, the plaintiffs did not accept the gift and therefore, they do not have any right to question about the cancellation of the said document. She further contended that till her lifetime, the said gift does not become complete and the title remained with her and she can cancel the same at any time. She further contended that she executed the above said gift settlement deeds by retaining life interest with an impression and hope that her three sons 8 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
would look after her till her lifetime. Thereafter, the 1st defendant waited and watched her sons for five years, but as none of them took care of the 1st defendant, and did not keep up their promise and assurance, she got executed cancellation deeds. She further contended that they even stopped paying rents and even visiting the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant contends that she was suffering with cardiac problem and health related problems and except the schedule properties she do not have any source of income and as her three sons stopped paying rents and providing any money towards her medical expenditure she was constrained to cancel the gift settlement deeds. While so, when she was suffering with starvation and ill- health, the 2nd defendant and his wife took pains to take care of her and provided her good food and medical assistance. At present, the 1st defendant is leading comfortable life under the shadow of the 2nd defendant and his family members and hence, out of love and affection, she gave Ac.0-50 cents of land i.e., Item No.1 of the schedule property by way of gift deed dated 17.10.2016 to the 2nd defendant.
During the trial, the plaintiffs examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 10. respectively. They also got marked Exs.A1 to A10 – Ex.A1 is registered settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 vide document No.7937/2007 of SRO,
Kakinada; Ex.A2 is registered settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 vide document No.3559/2007 of SRO, Samalkot; Ex.A3 is Meeseva copy of registration extract of registered cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 vide document No.11713/2012 of SRO, Kakinada; Ex.A4 is Meeseva copy of registration extract of registered cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 vide document No.4730/2014 of SRO, Sarpavaram; Ex.A5 is Meeseva copy of registration extract of registered gift deed dated 17.10.2016 vide document
No.11029/2016 of SRO, Kakinada; Ex.A6 is office copy of legal notice dated 07.04.2018; Ex.A7 is postal acknowledgments two in number; Ex.A8 is office copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2018; Ex.A9 is postal acknowledgment 9 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
of 1st defendant and Ex.A10 is returned cover addressed to the 2nd defendant.
On the other hand, DW1 to DW5 were examined on behalf of 11. defendants and no documents were marked.
Before adverting into the rival contentions, it is better to put down the
12. admitted facts hereunder. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. There is no dispute that the 1st defendant is owner of the plaint schedule properties, which are her self acquired properties.
Equally there is no dispute that the 1st defendant executed two registered gift settlement deeds in favour of her three sons i.e., plaintiffs and 2nd defendant by retaining life interest over the schedule properties.
The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant 13. unilaterally cancelled the gift settlement deeds without the consent or information of the plaintiffs and without having any right she executed another gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant and hence the said documents are void.
The 1st plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief 14. affidavit in lieu of his chief examination under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, which is nothing but replica of his averments made in the plaint. During the cross examination of PW1, he stated that the gift settlement deeds executed by her mother were still in possession of his mother. He further admitted that the properties covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and other properties belonging to his mother were self acquired properties of his mother. He further admitted that his mother was aged and unable to do her normal works by herself. He further admitted that the property tax, house tax, electricity bill, in respect of the schedule properties, stand in the name of his 10 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
mother. He further stated that he was paying taxes for one portion, but the bills stood in the name of his mother. He admitted that he had not mentioned the said fact that he was paying taxes with respect to his portion in his pleadings. He further admitted that initially the 2nd item of Ex.A1 settlement deed was purchased by their mother as vacant land, but at present there was a building aged about 40 years and that all the repairs to the said building are done by his mother till date. He further stated that he was aware that there is a recital in Ex.A1 settlement deed that they have to take care of their mother till her lifetime and as such, she retained her life interest in the property under Ex.A1. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether his mother executed any gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant after cancellation of Ex.A1 settlement deed in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. He further admitted that his mother again executed gift settlement deed in respect of item No.2 in the year 2024 where under she gave equal shares to all her three sons. He further admitted that at present his mother has to be taken care of like a child. He further deposed that on getting knowledge about the cancellation deeds under Exs.A3 and A4, he asked his mother about the same. Initially he stated that on such enquiry, his mother stated that she did not execute any cancellation deed, but again he stated that his mother did not say that she did not execute any cancellation deed.
The 2nd plaintiff got examined himself as PW2 by filing his chief 15. affidavit in lieu of his chief examination under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. During the cross examination of PW2, he admitted that their mother had executed gift settlement deed in favour of three sons bequeathing Ac.1-05 cents each in the year 2006 with absolute rights. He further stated that his mother again executed two registered gift deeds in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of her three sons by retaining life 11 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
interest. He further deposed that he did not know about the cancellation deeds executed by their mother in the year 2012 and 2014 and also another settlement deed in the year 2016, till he received a phone call from MRO in the year 2018. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether his mother executed any Will in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property on 05.03.2024.
On the side of defendants, the 1st defendant got examined herself as 16. DW1 by filing her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination under Order
XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC and she reiterated her averments as found in her written statement. During the cross examination of DW1, she stated that she was suffering with age related issues and not able to look after herself.
She further stated that the plaintiffs filed the present suit against her as she gave some property to the 2nd defendant without their consent. She admitted the execution of gift settlement deeds in favour of her three sons. She also admitted execution of cancellation deeds for the above said gift deeds. She pleaded ignorance as to whether her three sons signed on the said cancellation deed. She stated that she did not inform her sons about her intention to cancel the settlement deeds, but she informed them after execution of cancellation deed. Again, she stated that she did not inform about the cancellation deed to the plaintiffs. She further pleaded ignorance as to whether she had obtained any permission for cancellation of settlement deed. She deposed that she did not approach the Collector prior to the cancellation of settlement deed. She further stated that she had executed a Will for division of her properties according to her wish. She admitted receipt of pension from the Government. She admitted that she was receiving income of Rs.12,000/- from lands. She further stated that the plaintiffs were not taking care of her and only the 2nd defendant was taking care of her. She further stated that for the past 13 years, the plaintiffs did 12 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
not even visit her or called her as mother and they are not taking care of her.
The 2nd defendant examined himself as DW2 by filing his chief affidavit 17. in lieu of his chief examination under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and he deposed in lines with the averments made in the written statement. During the cross examination of DW2, he stated that their mother executed two registered gift settlement deeds, in triplicate, in favour of her three sons by retaining life interest in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Initially, he stated that all the three sons were served with a copy of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Thereafter, he stated that his mother did not handover the original gift settlement deed to them. He further stated that on the assurance given by the plaintiffs’ and believing their words, his mother gave copy of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to the plaintiffs. He further stated that they have no document to show that prior to the execution of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, they had informed the plaintiffs about the proposed cancellation and obtained their permission. He deposed that the matter was placed before the elders, wherein the plaintiffs stated that ‘whatever you like you can do’ and hence, they did not obtain any written permission. He further admitted that he has not mentioned any details about the elders or date as to when the matter was placed before the elders. He further deposed that he has not given any written information to the plaintiffs about the execution of Ex.A5. He further stated that he had not filed any application for mutation of revenue records basing on Ex.A5. He further admitted receipt of notice under Ex.A7 and stated that Ex.A8 notice was returned under Ex.A10 as he was on duty. He pleaded ignorance as to the presence of any condition in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 that all the three sons have to take care of their mother till her lifetime. He further deposed that basing on oral understanding that three sons have to take care of his mother, Exs.A1 and A2 were executed and there was no written condition. He further admitted that as per recitals of Exs.A3 and A4, 13 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
his mother stated that all the three son were not looking after her and hence, she got executed cancellation deeds. He further admitted that he had not filed any document to show the medical expense incurred by him towards his mother. Though he stated that he will file hospital bills, but he did not chose to file the same.
The defendants got examined a tenant as DW3 and he stated that the 18. 2nd defendant and his family members were looking after the welfare of the 1st defendant. During his cross examination, he admitted that he did not know the affairs of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants prior to 2010.
He stated that he was indebted for an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd defendant. He denied the suggestion that being a tenant under the 1st defendant and indebted to the 2nd defendant, he was deposed false on the instructions of the 2nd defendant.
The defendants got examined one Mokana Veera Venkata 19. Mahalakshmi who is member in Human Rights Commission and a family friend of the plaintiffs and the defendants as DW4. She stated that the 2nd defendant and his family members were looking after welfare of the 1st defendant. She further stated that in the year 2010, when a family dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the matter was placed
before the elders, wherein the plaintiffs bluntly refused to see the welfare of
the 1st defendant as she was getting a pension and since then the plaintiffs are not taking care of the 1st defendant. Hence, the 1st defendant executed cancellation deeds and thereafter she executed a registered Will dated 26.04.2024 in which DW4 signed as an attestor along with one Pendem
Papa Lakshmi. During her cross examination, she stated that as per her knowledge the mediation between the plaintiffs and the defendants took place in the month of March, 2024. She further stated that she was tenant under the 1st defendant for the period from 2004 to 2009. She stated that as 14 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
per her knowledge the 1st defendant was having Ac.3-00 and half acres which was divided among her three sons equally. She categorically stated that she knew only about the execution of Will in April, 2024 and she has no knowledge about the execution of other documents.
The defendants got examined one Muppina Sai Krishna, who was 20. retired APSRTC driver and family friend as DW5. He stated that the 2nd defendant and his family members are looking after welfare of the 1st defendant. During his cross examination, he stated that he came to know through the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant and his family members were taking care of her. But, he had not stated the said fact in his chief affidavit that he was informed about the same by the 1st defendant. He further stated that he did not have any personal knowledge about the affairs of plaintiffs and the defendants, but he came to know about the same only through the 1st defendant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing false on the instructions of the 2nd defendant as he was a co-employee in
APSRTC.
21.Before proceeding further, it is necessary to analyze the nature, scope and provisions dealing with the above document in brief. Section 122 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “Gift”. Article 33 of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 defines “Gift” as an instrument of, not being settlement, will or transfer. Therefore, a valid Gift, as defined would refer to an instrument by which there is voluntary disposition of one’s existing property either movable or immovable, without consideration to another, the acceptance of which should be made during the lifetime of the donor, implying imminent vesting of the right upon acceptance. Section 123 states, how a gift is to be made. It has two parts. The earlier part deals with immovable property and the later, with movable property. Insofar as an immovable property is concerned, registration is mandatory, which is in tune with Section 17 of the 15 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
Registration Act. Whereas, it is not only mandatory to register a gift of a movable property, it also can be effected by delivery. Section 126 states, as to when a gift can be suspended or revoked. This section bars unilateral revocation. Section 127 enables the donor to impose any condition in the deed, which has to be accepted for the gift to take effect or in other words, the donee without accepting the obligation, cannot be said to have accepted the gift. Section 128 deals with the liability of the donee for the debts of the donor to the extent of the property comprised therein. A conspicuous reading of the provisions would disclose that for a gift of an immovable property to be valid, it has to be registered, universal cancellation of the gift is impermissible and delivery of possession is not a condition sine qua non to validate the gift.
22.Insofar as a settlement deed is concerned, Section 2(b) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, defines the same to be a non-testamentary instrument whereby, there is a disposition or an agreement to dispose of any movable or immovable property to a destination or devolution of successive interest.
“Settlement” under the Indian Stamp Act under Section 2(24) refers to a non-testamentary disposition of any movable or immovable property in writing, in consideration of marriage or for the purpose of distributing the property of the settlor among his family or to those to whom he desires to provide or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him or for any religious or charitable purpose and includes an agreement in writing to make such a disposition. However, insofar as immovable properties, the registration is mandatory under Section 17 of the Registration Act. From the above definitions, it can be discerned that a settlement would mean a disposition of one’s property to another directly or to vest in any such person after successive devolution of rights on other(s). Further, the circumstances and reasons that led to the execution of such a settlement deed are described as its consideration, which need not necessarily be of 16 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
any monetary value. More often than not, it consists of love, care, affection, duty, moral obligation, or satisfaction, as such deed are typically executed in favour of a family member. Also, a settlor is entitled to reserve a life interest either upon himself or upon others and impose any condition. The person in whose favour, a life interest is created, is permitted to use and enjoy the income arising out of such property during his life time, but has no right of alienation as the property had already vested in the settlee. The breach of any condition in the settlement, would then render the settlement void.
However, there are restrictions under the Transfer of Property Act,1882 on the conditions that can be imposed. Section 11 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 states that when by virtue of a transfer, absolute right and interest has been vested in a party, any condition restricting or directing that the property must be enjoyed in a particular manner would be void as it is repugnant to the original grant. Similarly, any condition restraining or limiting the transferee from enjoying the property is also void to that extent.
Though under both the situations, the conditions are void, the interest vested already can be enjoyed absolutely as per the will of the transferee.
23.The primary difference between the Gift and the Settlement is the existence of consideration in the settlement. Consideration is nothing but the quid pro quo, that each party to a contract is to perform or render a part of their obligation under the contract. In view of the fact that a gift is a voluntary disposition, it is essentially not an agreement and hence, the element of consideration is taken away from it. Settlement on the other hand is always coupled with consideration as it is mostly executed in favour of a family member. The gift or settlement of an immovable property has to be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. The conditions regarding acceptance, reservation of life interest and restriction on revocation are applicable to both “gift and settlement”. The vesting of the right also takes place in praesenti in both the cases. Therefore, there is an 17 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
element of gift in every settlement. Further, in both the cases, unilateral revocation is not permitted as evident from Section 126 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. There can be a clause permitting such revocation in the deed. Similarly, the creation of a life interest would not affect the grant and change the character of the document. Similarly, the delivery of possession is not mandatory as in both cases. In case of a gift or settlement, it is sufficient if the donee/settlee had accepted the same during the life time of the executor of the document and such acceptance can be either express or implied, but must be visible from the conduct of the parties. Putting the donee/settlee into possession or handing over the document to the recipient can also be recognised as valid acceptance. The registration of the gift by the donee and the possession of such document will also amount to valid acceptance.
24.The matter can be viewed from yet another angle. Section 123 of the
TP Act is in two parts. The first part deals with gifts of immovable property while the second part deals with gifts of movable property. Insofar as the gifts of immovable property are concerned, Section 123 makes transfer by a registered instrument mandatory. This is evident from the use of word “transfer must be effected” used by Parliament insofar as immovable property is concerned. In contradiction to that requirement the second part of Section 123 dealing with gifts of movable property, simply requires that gift of movable property may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or “by delivery”. The difference in the two provisions lies in the fact that insofar as the transfer of movable property by way of gift is concerned the same can be effected by a registered instrument or by delivery. Such transfer in the case of immovable property no doubt requires a registered instrument but the provision does not make delivery of possession of the immovable property gifted as an additional requirement for the gift to be valid and effective. If the intention of the legislature was to 18 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
make delivery of possession of the property gifted also as a condition precedent for a valid gift, the provision could and indeed would have specifically said so. Absence of any such requirement can only lead us to the conclusion that delivery of possession is not an essential prerequisite for the making of a valid gift in the case of immovable property.
In K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam reported in (2004) 1 SCC 581, 25. the Hon’ble Apex court observed as follows: “The High Court was, therefore, apparently wrong in coming to the conclusion that the gift deed was ineffectual merely because the donor had reserved to herself the possession and enjoyment of the property gifted.”
26.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. In the case at hand, the execution of registered gift deed and its attestation by two witnesses is not in dispute. The donee had accepted the gift. The recitals in the gift settlement 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.”
In Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, 27. the Hon’ble Apex court after considering the scope of the Registration Act, held that even if fraud is pleaded or claimed, the authorities under the
Registration Act cannot unilaterally cancel the document and the parties should only approach the jurisdictional Civil Court, in the following words:
“36. If the document is required to be compulsorily registered, but while doing so some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent 19 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the other party to the extinguishment deed presented by the Society before the Registering Officer by no standard can be said to be a fraudulent action per se. The fact whether that was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to the other party to the deed, is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation. That fact cannot be presumed. Suffice it to observe that since the provisions in the 1908 Act enables the Registering Officer to register the documents presented for registration by one party and execution thereof to be admitted or denied by the other party thereafter, it is unfathomable as to how the registration of the document by following procedure specified in the 1908 Act can be said to be fraudulent. As aforementioned, some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the document, but a case of mere irregularity. In either case, the party aggrieved by such registration of document is free to challenge its validity
before the civil court.”
28.The element of voluntary disposition is common to all the three deeds.
The element of gift is traceable to both “settlement” and “will”. As settled in law, the nomenclature of an instrument is immaterial and the nature of the document is to be derived from its contents. While so, a voluntary disposition can transfer the interest in praesenti and in future, in the same document. In such a case, the document would have the elements of both the settlement and will. Such document, then has to be registered and by operation of the doctrine of severability, becomes a composite document and has to be treated as both, a settlement and will and the respective rights will flow with regard to each disposition from the same document. It is pertinent to mention here that the reservation of life interest or any condition in the instrument, even if it postpones the physical delivery of possession to the 20 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
donee/settlee, cannot be treated as a will, as the property had already been vested with the donee/settlee.
29.Thus, the legal position is well settled. There must be a transfer of interest in praesenti for a gift or a settlement and in case of postponement of such transfer until the death of the testator, the document is to be treated as a will. The fact that a document is registered, cannot be the sole ground to discard the contents and to treat the document as a gift, just because the law does not require a will to be registered. The act and effect of registration depends upon the nature of the document, which is to be ascertained from a wholesome reading of the recitals. The nomenclature given to the document is irrelevant. The contents of the document have to be read as a whole and understood, while keeping in mind the object and intent of the testator.
What is not to be forgotten is that in case of a gift, it is a gratuitous grant by the owner to another person; in case of a settlement, the consideration is the mutual love, care, affection and satisfaction, independent and resulting out of the preceding factors; in case of a will, it is declaration of the intention of the testator in disposition of his property in a particular manner. Therefore, even when there is any ambiguity in understanding the nature of the documents from its contents, we are of the view that the subsequent conduct of the executant must also be considered to take a decision. It is possible that in a single document, there could be multiple directions in different clauses though seemingly repugnant but in reality, it could only be ancillary or a qualification of the earlier clause. Therefore, the document must be harmoniously read to not only understand the true intent and purport, but also to give effect to each and every word and direction.
In Haji Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 30. 2012 (2) ALT 57, while holding that unilateral cancellation of registered Gift 21 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
Deed by way of a cancellation deed is illegal, observed that the decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v Govt of A.P., equally applies to
unilateral cancellation of Gift Deeds also. It was observed thus: “2. The
Supreme Court, in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Govt. of A.P., Judgment in Civil
Appeal No. 791 of 2007 and batch, held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered. The Supreme
Court, after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, held that it is only when the earlier sale deed is cancelled by a competent court can a cancellation deed be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non est and meaningless transactions. The observations of the Supreme Court, aforementioned, made in the context of sale deeds would equally apply to unilateral cancellation of gift deeds also. Unilateral cancellation of the gift deed in the present case must therefore be, and is, declared to be void. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent from invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court for cancellation of the subject gift deed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly”
31.In a case of Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta Vs. District Registrar
Srikakulam and others reported in 2012 (3) ALD 404, the composite High court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad as follows: “Gift is one of the forms of transfer of immovable property, dealt with under the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882. While in all other forms of transfer, such as, sale, mortgage, exchange, consideration flows from the transferee to the transferor, gift is a transaction which is not supported by any consideration. Section123 of the
Transfer of Property Act prescribes the procedure for execution of a valid gift. Once the gift is made in accordance with law and is accepted by the donee, it becomes irrevocable. In case the donor feels that the transaction is 22 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
tainted with any factors such as fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, the only remedy available to him is to file a suit for cancellation of the document.
In the present situation, a case of Renikunta Rajamma (died) by 32. L.Rs vs. K. Sarwanamma reported in AIR 2014 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 donee. 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.
In a case of Nakka Parthasarathy Vs Nakka Krishnaveni and 33. others reported in 2013 (5) ALD 711, the composite High court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad as follows: “ From the language of the section, it is clear that there must be "condition subsequent" attached to the gift on the happening of which the gift shall determine. But, such condition shall not depend on the mere will and pleasure of the donor. If it is to be understood that if such 'condition subsequent' is governed by the mere wish of the donor, he can revoke the gift at any time and in the strict sense there would be no gift at all. If the legal position concerning revocation of gift is examined in the context of the present case, even if late Narayanarao made gift in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 thinking that the defendants 1 and 2, who are his sons would look after him properly and later they did not take care his welfare, he could not have revoked the gift on the ground that he was neglected by his sons. In the absence of any specific recital that on the happening in a specific event the gift would be cancelled, it is irrevocable so long as the gift was not made under coercion or undue influence. In the instant case, from the evidence there is no doubt as to the fact that late
Narayana Rao voluntarily made gift in favour of his sons, defendants 1 and
2. There is no condition of any kind in Ex.A.2, gift deed got recited by late 23 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
Narayana Rao, according to which he and the donees, the defendants 1 and 2 agreed that on the happening of any specific event, the gift would be suspended or revoked. It was further held that when once the gift deed is voluntarily made without there being any coercion or undue influence, the acceptance of the gift by the donee would be complete even though the deed of gift is not delivered to the donee and the gift property continues to be in the donor’s possession.
In the present case, as per the terms of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2-gift 34. settlement deeds, after the death of donor-Adireddy Subbayyamma, the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant would get absolute rights in respect of the schedule property. By executing the said gift settlement deeds, the donor has divested her right in the schedule property so she cannot unilaterally execute any revocation deed for revoking the gift settlement deeds executed by her in favour of the plaintiffs. So the revocation deeds executed by the donor vide Exs.A3 & A4 are not binding on the plaintiffs as said deeds are not valid. So once the donor had no right to revoke the gift settlement deeds validly executed by her in favour of the plaintiffs, she cannot alienate the schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant by executing Ex.A5-gift deed.
In a case of Kolli Rajesh Chowdary vs State of Andhra Pradesh 35. and others reported in 2019 (3) ALD 220 (AP), the Hon’ble High court of
Andhra Pradesh observed as follows: “From the precedential guidance in the decision of the Supreme Court, it is manifest that there cannot be an unilateral cancellation of registered sale deeds and that a cancellation deed cancelling a sale deed can be registered only after the same is cancelled by a competent civil Court, after notice to the parties concerned, and that in the absence of any declaration by a competent Court or notice to parties, the execution of deed of cancellation as well as its registration are wholly void and non est and such transactions are meaningless transactions. In my opinion, the analogy which the Supreme Court applied to cancellation of sale deed equally 24 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
applies to the present deed of cancellation by which the 4th respondent cancelled unilaterally, the gift settlement deed executed by her in favour of the petitioner. In the present case, the procedure prescribed in the Rule afore stated has admittedly not been followed and the petitioner was not put on notice by the 2nd respondent before registering the revocation deed/deed of cancellation executed, on 29.09.2017 and registered, on 03.10.2017.”
36.The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws squarely applicable to the case on hand. The law is very clear that when the donor executed a registered gift settlement deed before the Sub-Registrar, donor has no right to cancel the same unilaterally before the Sub-Registrar. If the donor wants to cancel the gift settlement deed, she has to approach a civil court for cancellation and she cannot cancel the same by way of cancellation deed
before the Sub-Registrar.
37.In the case on hand, the dispute is with regard to execution of cancellation of registered gift settlement deed and the said cancellation of registered gift settlement deed is void and nonest in the law of eye. Hence in view of earlier enunciation in the light of precedents, this court has no hesitation to hold that the Cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 vide document No.11713/2012, cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 vide document No.4730/2014 and gift settlement deed dated 17.10.2016 vide document No.11029/2016 are null and void. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
ISSUE NO. 5:-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
38.In view of my discussion in earlier issues as the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration of documents executed by 1st defendant viz.,
Cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 vide document No.11713/2012, 25 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 vide document No.4730/2014 and gift settlement deed dated 17.10.2016 vide document No.11029/2016 are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
ISSUE NO.6:
To what relief?
In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring that the documents 39. executed by 1st defendant viz., Cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 vide document No.11713/2012, cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 vide document No.4730/2014 and gift settlement deed dated 17.10.2016 vide document No.11029/2016 are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are vested reminder holders of undivided unspecified 2/3rd share in Item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and also granting consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs right over the plaint schedule property in any manner. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9 th day of April, 2025.
Sd/- Nikitha R.Vora,
VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KAKINADA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1 : Adireddy Veera Venkata Satya Prasad P.W.2 : Adireddy Veera Venkata Surya Prakash
FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 : Adireddy Subbayamma 26 of 27
Fair Judgment in O.S.186/2018
Dated 09.04.2025
DW.2 : Adireddy Sateesh DW.3 : Medisetti Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu DW.4 : Mokana Veera Venkata Maha Lakshmi DW.5 : Muppina Sai Krishna
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1:Registered settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 vide document No.7937/2007 of SRO, Kakinada. Ex.A2:Registered settlement deed dated 18.07.2007 vide document No.3559/2007 of SRO, Samalkot. Ex.A3:Meeseva copy of registration extract of registered cancellation deed dated 11.12.2012 vide document No.11713/2012 of SRO, Kakinada. Ex.A4:Meeseva copy of registration extract of registered cancellation deed dated 22.08.2014 vide document No.4730/2014 of SRO, Sarpavaram. Ex.A5:Meeseva copy of registration extract of registered gift deed
dated 17.10.2016 vide document No.11029/2016 of SRO,
Kakinada. Ex.A6:Office copy of legal notice dated 07.04.2018. Ex.A7:Postal acknowledgments two in number. Ex.A8:Office copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2018. Ex.A9:Postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant. Ex.A10:Returned cover addressed to the 2nd defendant.
FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL.
Sd/- Nikitha R.Vora
VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KAKINADA
27 of 27