A registered gift deed cannot be revoked or cancelled unilaterally without the consent of the donee. Such unilateral cancellation deed does not bind the donee.

JUDGMENT

1. The above second appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2020 in A.S.No.41 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Razole, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 in O.S.No.71 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Razole.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.S.No.71 of 2013.

3. The plaintiffs, sisters, filed suit O.S.No.71 of 2013 to declare their title and for recovery of possession etc. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Chelliboina Somalamma, mother of plaintiffs; that Somalamma executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 10.09.2003 reserving life interest and vested remainder to the plaintiffs; that Somalamma died on 28.12.2012 and hence the schedule property devolved upon the plaintiffs being vested remainder holders; that during the life time of Somalamma, she allowed the defendant to cultivate plaint schedule property; that after death of Somalamma, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to deliver the plaint schedule property and at that point of time, defendant pleaded that he purchased the schedule property from Somalamma; that defendant might have obtained the document by misrepresentation and taking advantage of innocence of Somalamma and the said document does not bind the plaintiffs; that all the efforts made by the plaintiffs to take delivery went futile; that the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 22.02.2013, however defendant refused to receive the same and hence, filed the suit.

4. Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that he is the bonafide purchaser of plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2011; that by virtue of sale deed, he came into possession of the property; that plaintiffs being cousins of defendant are aware of the sale deed; that plaintiffs obtained document dated 10.09.2003 by playing undue influence with a promise to maintain their mother till her last breath; that since the plaintiffs failed to keep up the promise, deceased Somalamma revoked the gift deed through a registered revocation deed dated 08.02.2011 and eventually prayed the Court to dismissed the suit.

5. During the trial, 1st plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant examined himself as D.W.1, got examined D.W.2 and Exs.B-1 & B-2 were marked.

6. Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 decreed the suit with costs and declared the title of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to deliver vacant possession of property within three months, failing which the plaintiffs are also granted liberty to get the property delivered through process of Court.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellant/defendant filed A.S.No.41 of 2019. First Appellate Court being final factfinding Court vide judgment dated 27.02.2020, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal is filed.

8. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the registered gift settlement deed dated 10.09.2003 was revoked by the executant by revocation deed dated 10.02.2011 and hence, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit for declaration. He would further contend that the registered gift settlement deed dated 10.09.2003 is a conditional gift and since the respondents/ plaintiffs failed to comply with the condition, the deceased Somalamma revoked the gift by revocation deed dated 10.02.2011 and the same was registered vide document No.351 of 2011. He would also contend that the appellant/ defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the property and hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that delivery of propert