IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
C.M. POONACHA, J.
Mahadev S/o. Vishwanth Swamy - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vishalakshi, W/o. Mahadev Swamy, D/o. Mahaling Swamy & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 7075 of 2013
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100, Order VI Rule 4 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 92, 68, 111 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 13, 16(1) and (3) - Second Appeal - Registered Gift Deed - Mortgage suit property - Fraud and misrepresenting - Second Appeal is filed challenging judgment and decree passed – Whether both courts were justified in law in entertaining suit for mere declaration and injunction without claiming relief of consequential relief of possession, which is contrary of proviso to section 34 of Specific Relief Act - It is Defendant who was required to prove that there is no fraud played by him while executing Deed at Ex.D1, which he has failed to do - Para 28.
Finding of the Court:
Plaintiff has pleaded that she is in possession of property and Trial Court and first Appellate Court have concurrently held that she is in possession of suit property - Hence, proviso to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act is not attracted and said substantial question of law is answered in affirmative, against Defendant - Second substantial question of law is answered in affirmative against Defendant since Plaintiff has pleaded and proved fraud played by Defendant - On contrary, it is Defendant who was required to prove that there is no fraud played by him while executing Deed at Ex.D1, which he has failed to do - Third substantial question of law is also answered in affirmative against Defendant since both Trial Court and first Appellate Court have properly re-appreciated entire material on record while considering case of respective parties and decreeing suit of Plaintiff - Judgment and decree passed are affirmed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The above second Appeal is filed by the Defendant under Section 100 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2013 passed in RA.No.83/2012 by the Fast Track Court-II at Bidar, Camp at Bhalki (hereinafter referred to as the 'first Appellate Court') and the judgment and decree dated 9.7.2012 passed in OS.No.32/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhalki, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') and to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that property bearing No.195/2, measuring 7 Acres, situated at Bhalki (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') was purchased by her father through his own earnings in the name of her mother Nirmaladevi vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.12.1997. The Plaintiff being the only daughter of her parents, the said property was gifted in her favour by a registered Gift Deed dated 2.5.2005 and hence she is the absolute owner of the suit property. That the Plaintiff got married to the Defendant on 24.11.2004 and they have a daughter born from the said marriage. That the Defendant has taken money on many occasions from the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was also given a car and gold by the father of the Plaintiff. That the Defendant stating that he is taking a loan from the bank to improve the suit property for which the Plaintiff is required to mortgage the suit property in favour of the bank, brought her to the Sub Registrar's office and by playing fraud and misrepresenting her, has created the alleged Gift Deed in his favour in respect of the suit property and without disclosing the real facts asked her to put her signature on the document. The Plaintiff believing the words of her husband i.e., the Defendant has not gone through the contents of the document and signed the alleged Gift Deed, consequent to which, the Defendant has his name entered in the revenue records.
4. That after succeeding to get the Gift Deed in his name, the Defendant has turned hostile to the Plaintiff and has addicted to bad habits like, drinking and gambling and started neglecting the Plaintiff and has been torturing her to bring money and gold from her father. When the parents of the Plaintiff advised the Defendant to leave the bad habits, he threatened to alienate the gifted land which is standing in his name by virtue of the Gift Deed. It is then that the Plaintiff got to know about the Gift Deed got executed by the Defendant and thereafter, on 22.10.2008 the Plaintiff and her father have approached the office of the Sub Registrar to verify the records. After confirming the same and when the Defendant refused to cancel the Gift Deed, the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the following reliefs :
(b) That, the defendant be perpetually restrained from causing illegal interference and obstruction in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit land.
(c) A decree be passed for cancellation of gift deed bearing document No.3026/06-07 dtd: 21.8.2006 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant at S.R.O Bhalki.
(d) A decree be passed in favour of Plaintiff by issuing necessary directions to the Sub Registrar, Bhalki for cancellation of alleged Gift Deed bearing document No.3026/06-07 dtd: 21.8.2006 in their concerned records of the suit land.
(e) A decree be passed in favour of Plaintiff by issuing necessary directions to the Revenue Authorities for correction of records of rights in respect of suit land by deleting the name of Defendant from Col.No.9 and 12/2 and entering the name of Plaintiff in the RoR of the suit land.
(f) Cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiffs.
(g) Any other equitable relief/s to
Union of India v. M/s Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co.
Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash
Bijendra Nath Srivastava (dead) by Lrs. v. Mayank Srivastava & Ors.
Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust v. Chandran
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund
Thavarayil Salim v. Thekkeveettil Karuvantevalappil Saru
S. Saktivel (dead) by Lrs. v. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors.
Section 111 of Evidence Act States as proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.
The burden of proving fraud or misrepresentation in executing a gift deed lies with the plaintiff, and mere assertions without credible evidence are insufficient to invalidate the deed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper execution and attestation of gift deeds, the reversal of onus in cases of undue influence, and the need to consider the....
The burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact until it is discharged, and no party can travel beyond its pleading.
Point of Law : Essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 of Act are : (1) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign instrument or have received from him a personal acknowle....
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.