LINGARAJA RATH, J. :, J.

( 1 ) THE only question urged in these appeals is whether a gift made of an undivided interest in a coparcenary property by a coparcener, jointly in favour of some other members of the coparcenary and his daughter, is valid. A brief adumbration of facts is necessary to focus the question raised. The plaintiffs- appellants filed the suit O. S. No. 9 of 1975 as donees under the gift deed with the averment that they are the sons of defendant No. 4 - third respondent, another co-parcener. It was their case that one Nagappa and the defendant No. 4 were brothers and the plaintiffs together with them constituted the coparcenary. The respondent No. 1-first defendant is the daughter of Nagappa whereas the defendant No. 2-Respondent no. 2 is his widow. Nagappa executed the registered gift deed gifting his undivided interest in the coparcenary in favour of the appellants and respondent No. 1 equally. The suit was brought for partition, the respondents 1 and 2 having not agreed for the same. A further averment in the plaint, which did not find favour with the trial Court as also with the learned single Judge, was that there had been a previous partition of the joint family property prior to the execution of the gift deed with the gifted properties falling to the share of Nagappa. During the pendency of suit, the defendant No. 2 died. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 and her mother filing written statement stating of there having been no previous partition and the registered deed of gift having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and as not binding upon them. Besides, it was also contended that the deed of gift was cancelled by Nagappa on 4-9-1974 and that the defendants 1 and 2 had alienated the properties by registered sale deed Ex. B-3 in favour of third defendant-respondent No. 2. While the suit was pending, the original defendants 1 to 3 of the suit filed O. S. No. 86 of 1975 against the plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 in O. S. No. 9/75, seeking setting aside of the registered deed of gift executed on 18-7-1974, to declare it to have been duly revoked, for partition of the properties in A-Schedule of the suit in two equal shares and allot one to the plaintiffs in the suit and also to divide equally plaint schedules B,c and D properties, As a matter of fact, broadly stated, the stand of the plaintiffs in the second suit was the same as the defence taken by them in the written statement in o. S. No. 9 of 1975. In view of the respective stand of the parties, the moot question to be considered, for which issue was also framed, was the validity of the registered deed of gift executed by Nagappa, i. e. , whether it was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, whether it was void ab initio being gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest and whether it was revoked by the deed of cancellation. Both the suits were tried together and were disposed of by common judgment by the trial Court holding Ex. A-1, the registered deed of gift, to have been voluntarily executed out of free will and in sound state of mind. Ex. B-1, the dead of cancellation was held a doubtful document and not valid. Because of the conclusions reached, the suit O. S. No. 9 of 1975 was decreed whereas O. S. No. 86 of 1975 was dismissed. Both the appeals A. S. Nos. 1794 and 1334 of 1981 preferred by respondents1 and 2 against the judgment allowed by the learned single Judge holding any gift of undivided coparcenary interest to be void. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 9 of 1975 are in appeal in these Letters Patent Appeals.

( 2 ) THE only question, as has been already noticed, necessary to be decided is the validity of the registered deed of gift. While it is submitted by Mr. T. Balireddy, learned counsel for the appellants, that the gift executed by a member of coparcenary of undivided interest in favour of coparcener or coparceners is a valid act if the gift is accepted, it is the submission of Mr. Sundararajan, learned counsel fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document