JUDGMENT:- This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in a.s. No.185 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsiff, Gannavaram.

2. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of two items of property covered by the plaint schedule. The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the minor son of the defendant. It is not disputed that the defendant executed a registered gift deed on 3.4.1987 in respect of item No.1 in faovur of the first plaintiff. It is also not disputed that the defendant executed a partition deed on 9.4.1987 allotting item No.2 to the second plaintiff represented by the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs asserted that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. The defendant contended that the gift deed was not acted upon and he executed a revocation deed on 19.11.1992 revoking the gift and that the gift of a joint family property is void, therefore, the first plaintiff is not entitled for injunction in respect of item No.1. Though the defendant admits that item No.2 was allotted to the second plaintiff towards his share, he claimed that he is the natural guardian of the minor boy and the first plaintiff cannot act as a guardian without orders of the Court, therefore, he requested to dismiss the suit in respect of both the items of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit by refusing to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, preferred A.S. No.3l of 1997 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada and the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeal in part in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule and consequentially decreed the suit in respect of item No.2 and confirmed the judgment of the lower Court in respect of item No.1. The defendant did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the Appellate Court, whereas the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal in respect of item No.1 by raising the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether in a suit for an injunction simplicitor, complicated questions of the title can be gone into without any of the parties questioning the same and paying requisite Courts ~ fees.

2. Whether in a suit for injunction having given a finding that the 1 plaintiff is in possession of the property, the Court below erred in dismissing the suit particularly more so when the said possession has been admitted to have been given by the defendant.

3. Whether it is proper for the Court below to go into the validity of the gift deed which is not the relief sought for by the plaintiffs:

5. The defendant admitted the execution of the gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of item No.1. It was executed on 3.4.1987. The terms of the gift deed are very clear that the document was executed without any reservation and the possession of the land was also delivered to the done on the same day. The first plaintiff is no other than the wife of the defendant. There was estrangement between them and they were living separately since several years prior to the gift deed. The first plaintiff asserted that she is in possession of the property from the date of the gift deed by paying land revenue to the Government and by enjoying the same. Both the Courts, after considering the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendant, accepted that the delivery of possession was given to the first plaintiff in terms of EX.A 1 gift deed. But they refused to grant decree in favour of the first plaintiff by holding that, as it was a joint family property, the gift of a joint family property is void, therefore, the first plaintiff is not entitled for the decree.

6. The defendant contended that' he got item No.1 in partition with his brothers and he executed a gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff on 3.4.1987 and it was recited in the gift deed that the delivery of possession was given to the first plaintiff after del

Click Here to Read the rest of this document