Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Syamala Raja Kumari & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Alla Seetharavamma & Another - Respondents
S.A. No. 1054 of 2016
Decided On : 02-01-2017
Property Law - Transfer of Property Act - Section 126 - Appellants have assailed the Judgment & Decree dated passed in A.S.No. on the file of I Additional District Judge Guntur whereby confirmed the Judgment - Appellants have filed the present second appeal on the substantial questions - Whether the Courts below were justified in considering the deed dated executed by as an irrevocable gift settlement deed in favour of the respondent - Plaintiffs though the recitals in the said deed provided for retaining of life interest in the property in himself and after his demise to his wife - Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the revocation deeds executed by were void and not binding upon the respondent even in the absence of any prayer sought for by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this regard - Whether both the Courts were justified granting the reliefs sought by the respondent in the absence of any prayer in suit against the revocation deeds executed by the father of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also the substantial registered sale deed dated in favour of the appellant - Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are not bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration merely because the counsel for the appellant No.1 had received notice about the filing of the suit - Appellants submits that the document-Ex.A1 executed is a Will not a gift deed and the Will can be conditional and revocable if revoked in the same manner as executed earlier - Admittedly - Counsel for the appellants submits that the said document was a Will and in Will - Court below has discussed that when the gift may be suspended or revoked - For the said purpose Section of Transfer of Property Act is relevant which is reproduced - Held, plaintiffs would get absolute rights in respect of the schedule property - By executing the said gift settlement deed the donor has divested his right in the schedule property so he cannot unilaterally execute any revocation deed for revoking the gift settlement deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs - So the revocation deeds executed by the donor vide are not binding on the plaintiffs as said deeds are not valid - So once the donor had no right to revoke the gift settlement deed validly executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs he cannot alienate the schedule property in favour of the first defendant by executing Ex.B5-sale deed - Pertinent to mention here that within two months from the date of obtaining Ex.B5-sale deed the first defendant in turn alienated the schedule property in favour of defendants - Sale transaction entered by the first defendant in favour of defendants 4 & 5 is subsequent to the filing of the suit - Respondents that the property in question has only been got vacated vide order passed in E.P.No.1/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge Consequently the respondents 1 & 2 are in possession - Even otherwise the questions of law framed by the appellants has no legal issue therein and find no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the two Courts - Appeal are dismissed.
1.Vide the present second appeal, the appellants have assailed the Judgment & Decree dated 19-10-2016 passed in A.S.No.75/2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur whereby confirmed the Judgment & Decree dated 12-11-2015 passed in O.S. No. 50/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
2. The appellants have filed the present second appeal on the substantial questions of law as under:-
“1. Whether the Courts below were justified in considering the Ex.A1/Ex.B-2 deed dated 19-03-2005 executed by S. Narapa Reddy as an irrevocable gift settlement deed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs though the recitals in the said deed provided for retaining of life interest in the property in S. Narapa Reddy himself and after his demise to his wife?
2. Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the revocation deeds executed by S. Narapa Reddy were void and not binding upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 even in the absence of any prayer sought for by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this regard?
3. Whether both the Courts were justified granting the reliefs sought by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the absence of any prayer in suit against the revocation deeds executed by the father of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also the substantial registered sale deed dated 04-04-2012 in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3?
4. Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are not bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration merely because the counsel for the appellant No.1 had received notice about the filing of the suit on 02-04-2012 and the sale deeds in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3 were executed on 04-04-2012?”
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the document-Ex.A1 executed is a Will, not a gift deed and the Will can be conditional and revocable, if revoked in the same manner as executed earlier. Admittedly, Ex.A1 is a registered document, which can be revoked subsequently by another registered document, but the issue before the Court below was that whether the document-Ex.A1 was a Will or a gift deed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said document was a Will and in Will, some conditions can be affixed while exhibiting such document, whereas in case of gift, the said document is absolute and there cannot be any condition. In case of gift, whether it is gifted in favour of some one out of love and affection or not gifted any of the property over a right therein.
5. On a perusal of the impugned order, the Court below has discussed that when the gift may be suspended or revoked. For the said purpose, Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
“126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.- The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift, which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.
A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded.
Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.”
6. It is not in dispute that the gift is to be executed only out of love and affection. As per Ex.B2-gift settlement deed executed by donar, the donar executed the said gift deed out of love and affection towards the plaintiffs. Ex.B2 is a valid gift deed and it is a registered one. It is executed by owner and attested by two attesters. In fact, the execution of gift deed is not in dispute.
7. The donar in Exs.B3 & B4 revocation deed clearly admitted about the execution of Ex.B2-gift settlement deed. Even Ex.B5-registered sale deed also, the donar mentioned execution of Ex.B2-gift settlement deed i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
