Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 115

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.RADHA RANI, J.
Smt. Rani , Mangamma - Appellant
Versus
P. Mahender - Respondent
City Civil Court Appeal No.148 of 2016
Decided On : 09-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SUDHAKAR RAO KULKARNI
For the Respondent: RAVI KONDAVEETI

A gift deed executed by a party lacking title is invalid, allowing heirs to seek partition of inherited property without needing to cancel the gift deed.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Partition - Claim for partition of property owned by deceased grandmother - Validity of gift deed executed by deceased aunt contested - Court held that gift deed could not confer ownership as the donor lacked title - Plaintiffs entitled to seek partition without cancelling the gift deed. (Paras 10, 12, 19)

(B) Property Law - Principle of 'nemo dat quod non habet' - A person cannot give what they do not have - Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership. (Paras 12, 14, 16)

(C) Limitation Act - Time limit for challenging a gift deed - Court noted that plaintiffs did not challenge the gift deed within the statutory period, but that did not bar their claim for partition. (Paras 9.1, 19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought partition of property inherited from their grandmother, claiming the defendant unlawfully executed a gift deed in his favor. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's dismissal was set aside, granting the plaintiffs a preliminary decree for partition with equal shares.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs could seek partition without cancelling the gift deed, and whether the trial court's dismissal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gift deed was invalid as the donor lacked the title to the property, and the plaintiffs could seek partition without needing to cancel the gift deed.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. appellants filed for partition of property inherited from grandmother. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendant claims ownership through alleged gift deed. (Para 3)
3. court framed issues for determination regarding partition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. counsel presented arguments regarding the validity of the gift deed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. court analyzed the ownership and validity of the gift deed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. gift deed invalid due to lack of proof and execution requirements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. presumption of death affects property rights and partition claims. (Para 17 , 18)
8. plaintiffs entitled to partition and shares in property. (Para 19 , 20)
9. appeal allowed, trial court's decision set aside. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT :

G.RADHA RANI, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 2-plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by them seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in O.S No.349 of 2013 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 29.04.2016.

2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 along with the respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2) filed the suit for partition contending that they along with respondent No.1 (defendant) were the children of Sri P. Balamallaiah. The suit schedule property bearing Municipal No.19-1-184 admeasuring 162 sq. yds., situated at Dood Bowli, Chatkanipura, Hyderabad, belonged to Smt. P. Neelamma, their paternal grandmother, who purchased the same through registered sale deed document No.1102/1356 Fasli dated 28^th Amardad 1356 Fasli. Smt. P. Neelamma died intestate on 08.11.1990 leaving behind her, her daughter Devamma and son P.Balamallaiah as her legal heirs. Sri P. Balamallaiah, father of the plaintiffs and defendant died in the month of December, 1996, leaving behind him the plaintiffs and the defendant as his legal heirs. The mother of the plaintiffs and defendant pre-deceased her husband P. Balamallaiah. Smt. Devamma was residing at Nizamabad. Her husband died earlier and she had no issues. She died at Nizamabad on 25.08.2011. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, after their marriages were residing at Nizamabad along with their respective husbands, while the plaintiff No.3 was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property, even after her marriage along with her husband and children. After the death of Devamma, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant for partition of the suit schedule property and to deliver their separate shares, but the defendant was evading and avoiding to do so. The defendant wanted to usurp the entire schedule property. He bore grudge against the plaintiffs, more particularly, against the plaintiff No.3, who was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property and started harassing her and her family members. In furtherance of his intention, on the intervening night of 21/22 November, 2012, the defendant along with unsocial elements tried to dispossess the plaintiff No.3. The plaintiff No.3 gave police complaint and thereafter filed O.S. No.2650 of 2012 against the defendant seeking relief of perpetual injunction in the court of XX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim injunction. The defendant appeared in the said case and filed counter and written statement. He claimed ownership rights in respect of the entire schedule property. The defendant falsely alleged that Smt. P. Neelamma during her lifetime bequeathed the property in favour of her daughter Devamma and that Devamma gifted the property in favour of defendant through registered gift deed vide document No.985 of 2004 dated 03.07.2004. The plaintiff contended that Smt. P. Neelamma never executed any Will bequeathing the schedule property in favour of Devamma. The defendant created the gift deed to usurp the schedule property to deprive the plaintiffs their due shares. The plaintiffs were not aware about the execution of the gift deed by Devamma. The schedule property belonged to Smt. P. Neelamma and after her death an