IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
B. Lakshmi and Others - Appellants
Versus
B. Venkata Subbayyamma and Others - Respondents
First Appeal No.300 of 2006
Decided on : 22-01-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 122 - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Plaintiffs claimed ownership of property based on settlement deeds executed by their mother - Defendants contended that deeds were obtained by fraud and later cancelled - Trial Court dismissed suit, but appellate court found original deeds valid and cancellation void - Court emphasized that unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid without court intervention. (Paras 1, 3, 19, 25, 33)
(B) Legal principles - A gift deed, once executed and accepted, cannot be revoked unilaterally; the donor must seek court intervention for cancellation. (Paras 22, 23)
(C) Findings - The plaintiffs proved the validity of the settlement deed executed in their favor, and the cancellation deed was declared null and void. (Paras 25, 30)
(D) Issues - Whether the cancellation deed was valid; whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought. (Paras 13, 30) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the original gift settlement deed was valid and the cancellation deed was void, emphasizing the need for judicial intervention for revocation. (Paras 25, 30) (F) Result - Appeal allowed; decree and judgment of the trial court set aside; suit decreed as prayed for, except for damages. (Paras 33)
JUDGMENT :
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short "the C.P.C.‟], is filed by the Appellants challenging the decree and judgment, dated 19.12.1988 in O.S.No.138 of 1984 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem [for short "the trial Court‟].
2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.138 of 1984.
3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the plaint "B‟ schedule property and to direct the defendants to vacate the plaint "D‟ schedule property and put the same in possession of the plaintiffs; to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiffs Rs.1,080/- as damages for use and occupation with interest thereon from the date of suit till payment; to direct the defendants to pay Rs.30/- per month together with interest from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of plaint "D‟ schedule property to the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.
4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
5. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S.No.138 of 1984, are as under:
(i) One late Bandreddi Venkayamma purchased the house and the site described in plaint "A‟ schedule property with her own money, on 24.03.1945 under a registered sale deed from one Pasupuleti Lakshmanaswami. The said site and house is her Shridhana property and she was in possession and enjoyment of it in her own rights as the owner thereof. One Bandreddi Rathayya, who was serving as an employee in Taluk office at Tadepalligudem, was living with her in the same house and site along with late Venkayamma. The entire burden of supporting late Venkayamma and Thulasamma's children, in addition to supporting his wife and children, fell upon late Gangarao. Late Apparao, who was serving places other than Tadepalligudem, did not at all care to maintain either late Venkayamma or late Thulasamma's children. Seeing the great burden which late Gangarao was shouldering in maintaining her and Thulasamma's children, late Venkayamma was extremely pleased with late Gangarao and evinced much love and affection for him. Out of such love and affection, in consideration of late Gangarao promising to support her and Thulasamma's children, late Venkayamma, of her own free will, decided to settle a major portion of her plaint "A‟ schedule house and site on late Gangarao with absolute rights. As her elder daughter Satyavathi was more or less in indigent circumstances, she decided to settle the rest of the house and site on her with absolute rights.
(ii) In pursuance of her such decision, late Venkayamma executed a settlement deed on 24.10.1972 in favour of late Gangarao settling on him with absolute rights in the portion of the plaintA‟ schedule house and site, which is described in plaint "B‟ schedule property. She executed another settlement deed on the same date in favour of Satyavathi settling on her with her absolute rights in the rest of the plaint "A‟ schedule site, which is described in plaint "C‟ schedule property. She executed both the settlement deeds of her own volition and in a perfectly sound and disposing state of mind and got them duly registered in the Sub-Registrar‟s Office at Tadepalligudem. She delivered possession of plaint "B‟ schedule portion of the house and site to late Gangarao and plaint "C‟ schedule portion of the house and site to Satyavathi on the date of the settlement deeds and the deeds themselves respectively to them after they were received from the Sub-Registrar‟s office. She delivered her title deed to the property i.e., the sale deed, dated 24.03.1945, also to late Gangarao. Late Gagarao and Satyavathi accepted the settlements and the deeds and entered into possession of plaint "B‟ and "C‟ schedule properties respectively on the date of deeds. From that time onwards, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties as the owners thereof in their o
A registered gift deed cannot be unilaterally revoked; cancellation requires judicial intervention to be valid.
The legal effect of a cancellation deed executed to cancel a settlement deed and the interpretation of Ext.B1 as a gift deed.
Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid without specific grounds for revocation under law, reaffirming 'possession follows title'.
The revocation of a settlement deed must be justified under the legal provisions, and the court will consider evidence and legal principles to determine the validity of such revocation.
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 registered gift deed cannot be revoked or cancelled unilaterally without the consent of the donee. Such unilateral cancellation deed does not bind the donee.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.