Possibility of revocation of gift.

The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff, who is the sole respondent, instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration of his title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the properties.

The plaintiff is the grandson of one Panaya. Plaintiff’s father is Subbaiah. Panaya had a brother Veeraiah who had no sons but had four daughters. One of the daughters was married to one Nallamothu Ramachandraiah who, after his marriage lived practically as the illatom son-in-law in the house of Veeraiah. The houses of Panaya and Veeraiah formed portions of the same house. Veeraiah by a gift deed Exhibit A-7 dated nth June, 1918, gifted away items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule to Ramachandraiah his son-in-law and the fifth item in the plaint schedule was acquired by Ramachandraiah under Exhibit A-8 dated 8th August, 1022. For a long time, Ramachandraiah had no issue. On 15th May, 1930, by Exhibit B-6, Ramachandraiah purported to gift away items 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff subject to certain conditions. The place of residence of Ramachandraiah and the plaintiff’s father was Nadendla, a village within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Chilakalauripet. The document was executed at Chilakalauripet in the karnam’s house. It was presented for registration on the subsequent day, 16th May, 1930, at Chilakalauripet and was registered. The plaintiff bases his title to the suit properties on this gift deed.

The case of the defendants, the first defendant being the daughter born to Ramachandraiah 274 days after the date of the gift deed and the second defendant being her husband, who however died pending suit, was that when this document was received by post by Ramachandraiah on the 17th or 18th May, 1930, at Nadendla he complained after having the doument read over to him, he being illiterate, to D.Ws. 4 and 8, that he was defrauded by Subbiah, the father of the plaintiff who was then a minor, as it was represented to him that the document was a will executed in accordance with the wishes of Ramachandraiah whereas as a matter of fact he found on a perusal of the document that the entire property was gifted away to the plaintiff subject only to the obligation of the donee performing the obsequies of Ramachandraiah. There was no obligation cast on the donee to maintain Ramachandraiah and his wife; nor was there any obligation cast on him to perform the funeral ceremonies of Ramachandraiah’s wife. After having this document read over to him and realising that he was made to execute fraudulently a document which he never intended to execute, on 19th May, 1930, he executed a deed of cancellation Exhibit B-8 in which he stated:

"The minor’s father Subbiah having represented to me that he would recite in the said document certain matters which he had told me, namely, that minor Narayana should maintain me and my wife during our lifetime, that only after the lifetime of both of us he should enjoy the property with all rights and some other matters favourable to us, and would get the document registered, had, without making the recitals accordingly, got it written that my obsequies alone would be performed As he thus misled me and got the deed registered and as all the conditions in the said deed are against me, I hereby cancel the dakhaldeed bearing No. 791 as stated above."

This was followed by a notice which he issued on 4th June, 1930, to the plaintiff’s father as his guardian, which however was not produced by the plaintiff, in which he intimated that he had by a registered deed cancelled the gift deed Exhibit B-6 for the reasons mentioned therein. On 26th July, 1930, the plaintiff’s father sent a reply through his vakil Exhibit 7 in which he asserted that the document was executed by Ramachandraiah out of his free-will and was in accordance with his wishes, tha