The judgment emphasizes the principle of undue influence in the execution of a gift deed, especially in cases involving a fiduciary relationship, and highlights the burden of proof on the donee to establish the voluntary nature of the gift.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1975 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, hubli in RA No. 121/71 on his file, allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree dt. 2 12-1970, passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli, in LC Suit No. 241/67, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

( 2 ) ONE Sannatammappa was the owner of the suit land. He died leaving behind him his widow the present plaintiff-appellant and thereafter the plaintiff started cultivating the land through hired labourers. Sometime thereafter one Hanumanthappa gori started claiming that he was a tenant of the suit land and he got his name entered in the record of rights. Disputes arose between the plaintiff and the said hanumanthappa. It was then that the first defendant and one Basappa assured the plaintiff that they would help her in getting possession of the suit land back from Hanumanthappa and in that connection defendant No. 1 represented that the plaintiff should execute a document to enable him to help her. Accordingly, she executed a document. Subsequently, she got removed the obstruction from Hanumanthappa and continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. She even mortgaged the suit property in favour of one Maruthi Yadav under Ext. P 1 on 14 6-1965, The mortgage deed was attested by the first defendant and when the first defendant and another person who claimed to be a tenant under him, namely the second defendant started obstructing possession of the mortgagee, he instituted a suit at OS No. 110/67 and obtained a judgment for permanent injunction against them as per Ext. P 10. Thereafter, she received notice as per Ext. P 13 on 18 10-1966 from the talati for the entry of the name of the first defendant as the owner of the suit lard. That set her on enquiry and she came to know that defendant 1 had obtained a gift deed from her. She never intended to execute a gift deed. Hence, the alleged gift deed if at all, was nominal. So, she instituted a suit for declaration that the alleged gift deed was nominal and for declaration of title of the suit land and for injunction against defendants.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants by filing their written statement. They contended that the plaintiff executed a gift deed Ext. P 1 on 30-5-1960 fully knowing the contents of the deed. Accord ing to them, it was meant to be acted upon and in fact defendant 1 had leased the property in favour of defendant 2. Hence, they prayed that the suit should be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings : x x

( 5 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, held that the alleged gift deed was merely nominal and was never meant to be acted upon and in that view the trial Court held that the suit was in time and decreed the suit of th? plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant 1 went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, hubli, in RA No. 121/71 on his file and the learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal, re assessing the evidence on record held that the gift deed Ext. P 1 was executed legally and validly and in that view he held that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property, she had not even possession of the suit land. Hence, he allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has instituted the above second appeal before this Court.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the Court below was not justified in thinking that the gift deed was executed by the plaintiff fully knowing its contents and of her free will in favour of defendant 1. He submitted that the matter was fully discussed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court failed to consider the unique perspective of