A registered gift deed cannot be revoked unilaterally without a court order, and revocation after 30 years is void.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 28-9-2011 in A.S.No.182 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 21-6-2007 in O.S.No.261 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller cum IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. The 1^st appellant herein is the sole defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.261 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.261 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, with a prayer to cancel the revocation deed dated 16-8-2003 purported to have been executed by the defendant, unilaterally revoking gift of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff made under the registered gift deed dated 07-6-1973, declaring that the said revocation deed as illegal, ab initio, null and void, inoperative and unenforceable and also to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendant from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property or high handedly encroach upon the property to whatsoever manner and for costs.

4. The learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.261 of 2004, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of 174.6 square yards of house site in Seetharampuram of Vijayawada. The plaintiff said to be acquired the property under an unconditional gift made by his mother Avuthu Rangamma, who is the defendant herein, under the registered Dakhalu Dastaveju dated 07-6-1973. Further, the plaintiff accepted the gift under the said registered document, the schedule property wherein there was a thatched house by then was delivered to the plaintiff and ever since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner. The thatched shed that was originally existing at the time of the gift, met with fire accident and the land was lying vacant. About two years back, the plaintiff erected a temporary shed in the portion of the site to keep his car and scooter. The shed constructed as garage with open front space. The said shed thus constructed was assessed to Municipal property tax and paying property tax as owner and possessor of the schedule property.

(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is working as a lecturer and residing in the house opposite to the schedule property due to differences between the plaintiff and the defendant and his brother and sister. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada. In view of the differences, the defendant and her son Avuthu Kotireddy and her daughter Vuyyuru Krishna Kumari aligned together with evil idea of grabbing the property of the plaintiff, furtherance of conspiracy and created and fabricated documents, of which the plaintiff came to know that one such document is created, pressed into service is a purported revocation deed dated 16-8-2003 registered as Document No.2941/2003 in the office of Sub Registrar, Patamata, Vijayawada. The said document purported to have been signed and executed and registered by the defendant on 16-8-2003.

(c) It is further plea