The court established that an unconditional gift deed may be revoked if the intent behind the gift is not fulfilled, especially when fraud or misrepresentation is involved.

JUDGMENT :

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 13.04.2018 passed in R.A.No.138/2011 by the I Additional District Judge, Vijayapura, (for short ‘first appellate Court’) and Judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.243/2011 (old No.222/2004) of Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi, (for short ‘the trial Court’) and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1.

2. The appellants were the defendant Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.1 was plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.243/2011 (old No.222/2004).

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration that plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property bearing Survey No.235/2 measuring 2 acres holding that gift-deed in favour of defendant No.1 is obtained by fraud and misrepresentation; to declare that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null & void and to hand over the possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff; alternatively, if Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has no right to get back the possession of the suit schedule property, then to cancel the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and to direct the Government to take the property as belonging to Government and direct the revenue authorities to remove the names of the defendants from RTCs, include name of plaintiff or Government as the case may be; for Court costs and such other reliefs.

4. The case of plaintiff before trial Court in nutshell is that, Survey No.235/1, totally measuring 3 acres 8 guntas is the ancestral property of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is resident of Sindagi. During 1993, defendant No.1 came to Kolhar village and told that he intended to construct Shivaganga Math in the said village and requested elders of the village to donate property for construction of said Math and after discussion of the same with elders, it is decided that Math could be constructed in the lands belonging to plaintiff because it is convenient place for construction of Math and elders requested the plaintiff to gift the property for construction of Math. The plaintiff agreed to give 2 acres of land for construction of Math. But, defendant No.1 had no such intention to construct Math, even then, he defrauded plaintiff and villagers and obtained gift by playing drama. On 14.11.1993, defendant celebrated function of foundation of Math and for said function, Jayadeva Mahaswamiji of Vanashree Sansthana Math, Vijayapura and Neelagund Mahaswamiji have attended and they presided over the laying of foundation stone, then MLA of said place B.S.Patil (Managuli) and other elders have participated in the said function. Tahasildar M. S.Walikar, Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapura S.G.Wali were also attended the said function. In the said function, plaintiff and his younger brother were felicitated for donating land for the construction of Math and photos were also taken. The invitation cards were printed and it was distributed to the villagers and adjacent villagers. Thus, defendant No.1 made plaintiff to believe that he would construct Math in suit schedule property. Afterwards, as plaintiff and his younger brother promised elders, they along with defendant No.1 came to Sub-Registrar office, Basavan Bagewadi and they told that as this is agricultural property, it cannot be gifted to the Math, but it could be gifted to any individual person. Hence, plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed to execute gift in the name of defendant No.1 only