Point of Law: Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act embodies principles of universal application that when main object of transferor is to make an absolute transfer, an inconsistent provision therein cannot be given effect to.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2016 passed in R.A.No.13/2016 and R.A.No.14/2016, respectively on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Holalkere.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.67/2010 is that the suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have contended that they are the owners and in possession of suit schedule properties. Earlier suit schedule properties were belongs to their grandfather G. Siddappa, grandfather of plaintiffs has executed a registered will deed on 20.02.1982 in favour of plaintiffs and bequeathed suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs. It is contended that the grandfather of plaintiffs died on 19.06.1988. After the death of plaintiffs’ grandfather, plaintiffs have come in possession of suit schedule properties as owners and they are paying land revenue to the Government. It is contended that the khatha of suit schedule properties are still standing in the name of the defendant. The defendant has no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule properties. On 13.06.1977 plaintiffs’ grandfather G. Siddappa had executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant on a condition that the defendant should construct a hostel building in suit schedule item No.2 property and it should be named in the name of “Chiganarappa and G. Siddappa”. The defendant should make use of usufructs of suit schedule item No.1 property for running the hostel. It is stated that though plaintiffs’ grandfather executed gift deed in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of defendant, but he never parted with the possession of suit schedule properties at any time. Since defendant has not fulfilled conditions stated in the gift deed, plaintiffs’ grandfather was forced to cancel the registered gift deed dated 13.06.1977 and 20.02.1982 under a registered gift cancellation deed. Later defendant got changed the khatha in his name with the support of politicians and revenue officials under MR No.10/1981-82. The Tahasildar, Holalkere has issued an endorsement on 12.12.2008 stating that the records in respect of MR No.10/1981-82 are not available in his office. The defendant is trying to oust the plaintiff from suit schedule properties with the support of Chikkajajur Police. Hence, they are constrained to file the present suit for the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction.

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying all the allegations and averments made in the plaint. It is admitted that Siddappa has executed registered gift deed in favour of defendant on 13.06.1977. The defendant denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the grandfather was not parted with the possession of suit schedule properties after execution of gift deed and denied the execution of conditional gift deed, cancellation of gift deed and the Will executed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also denied the allegation that MR came into existence colluding with politicians and revenue officials. The defendant has contended that the said G. Siddappa was the absolute owner and the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of G. Siddappa and he was devotee of Shri. Bruhanmatt and he appealed before Swamiji of Sri. Tharalabalu Bruhanmatt, Sirigere to give the suit schedule properties in gift to the Tharalabalu Education Society (R.), Sirigere, and accordingly G. Siddappa has executed gift deed and delivered the possession of suit schedule properties. There was a mistake with regard to sub phode number which was mentioned survey number as 62/4 instead of 62/2 and also executed a rectification deed on 26.07.1980. On the strength of registered gift deed and registered rectification deed the MR No.10/1981-82 is mutated in the name of the defendant. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the