Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Adavi Seetha Mahalakshmi and Others - Appellant
Vs.
Thota Varamma and Others - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 72/2019
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Second appeal against reversal of trial court's dismissal of suit for declaration of void gift deed - The plaintiffs claimed ownership of property inherited from deceased relatives, while defendants asserted ownership through an unregistered agreement of sale. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, declaring the gift deed void due to lack of title by the grantor. (Paras 4, 11, 27, 28)
(B) Maintainability of Suit - A suit for declaration without seeking consequential relief is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. (Paras 12, 28)
(C) Title Transfer - No title can be transferred without a registered document as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (Paras 21, 27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought to declare a gift deed executed by the second defendant in favor of the first defendant as void, claiming ownership of the property inherited from their deceased relatives. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court found in favor of the plaintiffs.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the second defendant had no valid title to the property and thus could not execute a gift deed.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the property and the maintainability of the suit without seeking consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second defendant's lack of title rendered the gift deed void, emphasizing that a valid title must be established through a registered document.
Result: Second appeal dismissed, confirming the appellate court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court discussed the maintainability of the suit in paragraphs 12 and 28, focusing on whether the plaintiffs had the locus standi to challenge the validity of the gift deed and the transfer of property. In paragraph 12, the court observed that the suit was maintainable because the plaintiffs, being in joint possession and having inherited the property, had a legitimate interest to contest the validity of the transfer. They were entitled to question the legality of the gift deed based on the alleged lack of valid title of the defendant who executed it (!) .
In paragraph 28, the court reaffirmed that the suit was maintainable as it was essentially a suit to declare a transfer invalid and to establish the plaintiffs' rights over the property. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claim was not barred by any legal defect in the suit's framing and that they had sufficient interest to institute the suit. The court further clarified that the validity of the transfer and the ownership rights were justiciable issues, and the suit was properly filed within the legal framework, thus remaining maintainable (!) .
Overall, the court found that the suit was maintainable because the plaintiffs had a legal interest in contesting the transfer and the validity of the gift deed, and the issues raised were within the scope of the court's jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT :
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 05.12.2018, reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 27.08.2012.
2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
During the pendency of the appeal suit before the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, the 2nd appellant herein died and the appellant Nos.3 to 6 herein are brought on record as legal representatives of the 2nd appellant. Further during the pendency of this appeal, the 1st appellant died and her legal representatives are already brought on record as appellant Nos.3 to 6.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, with a prayer for declaration that the document bearing No.7738 of 2006 of Sub Registrar Office, Mangalagiri, executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant on 27.11.2006 is void, inoperative and therefore, it shall be cancelled.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, allowed the first appeal and reversed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.554 of 2008, is as follows:
The husband of 1st plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, his mother Devamma purchased the properties as guardian of Kotaiah and Sivaiah, was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property till Kotaiah and Sivaiah attained majority and after that, both Kotaiah and Sivaiah were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property till their death. The said Thota Kotaiah and Sivaiah died intestate, then the plaintiffs 1 to 5 being the legal heirs of Thota Kotaiah succeeded undivided half share in plaint schedule property of said Kotaiah, so also plaintiffs 6 to 8 being legal heirs of Thota Sivaiah succeeded remaining half share in the plaint schedule property, all plaintiffs 1 to 8 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is further averred that the 2nd defendant executed a gift deed in favour of 1st defendant who is wife of 2nd defendant as such, the said gift deed executed in favour of 1st defendant by 2nd defendant is void, inoperative and liable to be cancelled as 2nd defendant has no right to execute such document in favour of 1st defendant. Hence, the suit.
7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendants, are as follows :-
Both Thota Kotaiah and Sivaiah during their life time and after attaining majority sold the plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant under a possessory agreement of sale, dated 09.12.1972, as such, 2nd defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of possessory agreement of sale, dated 09.12.1972 and ever since, the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till it was bequeathed to his wife 1st defendant under a registered gift deed bearing No.7738/2006, dated 27.11.2006 of Sub-Registrar Office, Mangalagiri. Therefore, the 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of same.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, settled the fol
A gift deed executed by a party without valid title is void; ownership must be established through a registered document as per the Transfer of Property Act.
A legal right to a permanent injunction exists to protect lawful possession from interference, irrespective of ownership claims.
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.
Cancellation of Settlement-Deed – Settlor once executed settlement deed bequeathing his rights to any person, later he cannot have any right to cancel settlement deed on any ground unilaterally in a ....
A registered gift deed cannot be unilaterally revoked; cancellation requires judicial intervention to be valid.
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
The validity of a registered gift deed does not require consideration, as long as possession is delivered, confirming property rights to the donee.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
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
