Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 520
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Kedari Peda Achaiah - Appellant
Versus
Gunukula Jayabalamma - Respondent
Decided On : 09-01-95
A gift deed is valid and enforceable if it is executed voluntarily and without fraud or undue influence. A will is valid only if it is executed voluntarily and in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Headnote:
PARTITION - GIFT DEED - REVOCATION - VALIDITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 101 TO 103 - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, SECTION 68 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, SECTION 123 - INTERPRETATION - GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY MOTHER IN FAVOUR OF DAUGHTERS AND NIECE - SUBSEQUENT WILL EXECUTED BY MOTHER IN FAVOUR OF SON - SON CHALLENGING GIFT DEED ON GROUND OF FRAUD AND UNDUE INFLUENCE - SON FAILING TO PROVE FRAUD OR UNDUE INFLUENCE - GIFT DEED HELD VALID - WILL HELD INVALID - SON NOT ENTITLED TO SHARE IN PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties, which were gifted to them and defendant 1 and 2 by their mother through a registered gift deed dated 21-1-1961. Defendant 3, the eldest brother of the plaintiffs, claimed that the gift deed was revoked by a registered will executed in his favor on 18-1-1979 and that the gift deed was not valid and did not bind him.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the gift deed was genuine and that the defendant failed to establish that it was obtained by fraud or undue influence. The court also found that the will alleged to have been executed by the mother in favor of the defendant was not proved. The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings and dismissed the defendant's appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed executed by the mother was the result of fraud? 2. Whether the cancellation deed was valid? 3. Whether the mother voluntarily executed a will bequeathing the property to the defendant?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving fraud or undue influence in the execution of the gift deed lay on the defendant, and that he had failed to discharge this burden. The court also held that the will was not valid as it was not proved that the mother had voluntarily executed it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's second appeal, holding that the judgments of the courts below did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.
( 1 ) THE 3rd defendant who suffered a decree for partition in O. S. No. 104/81 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam confirmed by the District judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in A. S. No. 119/87 dated 15-6-1992 has filed the Second Appeal. For the purpose of disposal of this Second Appeal the parties are referred toas they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are the sisters. The 3rd defendant is their eldest brother. The 2nd defendant is the daughter of the plaintiffs eldest sister. The schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiffs mother Kedari Narasamma. She executed a registered gift deed dated 21-1-1961 gifting the schedule property jointly in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 reserving the life interest therein. The said gift deed was executed in the presence of the plaintiffs, 2nd defend ant, 3rd defendant and his other brothers. The said Narasamma died on 3-4-1979. On her death, the plaint schedule property became the property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of gift deed and the 3rd defendant was staying along with his family in the plaint schedule property. After the death of Narasamma, the plaintiffs requested the 3rd defendant to vacate the building but, he sought time till the marriage of his son. In spite of celebrating his son s marriage, he refused to vacate the building in question, and he started demolishing the partition of the schedule building. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and for allotment of the share and possession.
( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 failed to file the written statements. The 3rd defendant filed the written statement. He admitted the relationship and also the nature of the property. He also admitted the execution of gift deed dated 21-1-1961. According to him, the said gift deed was revoked on 18-1-1979 by executing a registered will in hisfavour. He denied the other allegations. According to him, the gift deed is not a valid one and does not bind him. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:"1, Whether me gift deed pleaded by the plaintiffs is not true, valid and binding and the same is not accepted as pleaded by the defendant no3?2, Whether the revocation deed dt. 18-1-79 is true, valid and binding?3, Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition and separate possession of their share as pleaded by them?4, Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the past and future profits as prayed for?"
( 3 ) TO prove their case both the parties led their oral evidence and filed written documents. On plaintiff s side three witnesses were examined as p. Ws. ltos. On their behalf Exs. A-1 and A-2 were filed. On defendants side, defendant No. 3 was examined as D. W. 1 and three others as D. Ws. 2,3 and 4. They filed documents, Exs. B-l to B-3. the trial Court on appreciating the entire evidence found that though Ex. A-l, gift deed was genuine, it was disputed by defendant No. 3 stating that the same was obtained by mis-representation and undue influence. But, he failed to establish that the plaintiffs had obtained the gift deed, Ex. A-l by playing fraud or undue influence. Whereas Ex. B-2, registered will alleged to have been executed by Smt. K. Narasamma in favour of the 3rd defendant held as not proved. Having found that Ex. A-l as a genuine one and Ex. B-2 as not a valid one, the trial Court found mat the plaintiffs have made out a case for partition and for allotment and possession and decreed the suit by its judgment dated 8-10-1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 3rd defendant preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 119/87. The learned district Judge who heard both sides, perused the records and reconsidered the entire evidence, and found the following points deserved to be considered:"1. Whether the gift deed executed by Narasamma isaresultof the
