1. Suit for declaration of title and injunction by Class-I legal heirs of deceased owner against propounders of Will and unregistered Gift Deed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 359
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.
Photedar Ramesh Kumar and Another - Appellants
Versus
Photedar Susheelamma and Another - Respondents
AS.No.2084 of 1999
Decided On : 08-06-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri A. Narasimha Reddy.
For the Respondents: Smt. Manjari S. Ganu.
For the Appellants : Sri A. Narasimha Reddy.
For the Respondents: Smt. Manjari S. Ganu.
In a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, the court can evaluate the validity of rival documents without a specific prayer for their cancellation. The burden of proof for a Will lies on the propounder to dispel all suspicious circumstances and prove due execution.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 63, 68 and 73 - Suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction - Rival claims based on a Will and an unregistered Gift Deed - Maintainability of suit in the absence of a specific prayer to declare such documents null and void - In a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction, the Civil Court is entitled to examine the genuineness, validity, and evidentiary value of documents as part of the adjudication of title, even without a separate relief for cancellation or declaration that they are void (Paras 41, 45 and 46).
(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Unregistered Gift Deed - A void document, such as an unregistered gift deed of immovable property, does not create any enforceable right in law and therefore does not require a formal prayer for cancellation (Paras 42 and 57).
(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 63, 68 and 73 - Proof of Will - The burden of proof lies heavily on the propounder of a Will to prove its due execution and dispel all suspicious circumstances (Paras 43, 50 and 55) - Comparison of signatures under Section 73 is permissible when the court finds the signatures on the disputed document do not tally with admitted signatures (Para 59).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, being the second wife and daughter of the deceased absolute owner, filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction over suit schedule properties. The defendants, claiming to be the grandsons of the step-brother of the deceased, set up a rival claim based on a Will and an unregistered Gift Deed allegedly executed by the deceased in their favor. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the legal heirs inherited the properties under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and that the defendants' documents were invalid. This judgment was challenged in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the unregistered gift deed was void under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The Will was held to be invalid as the defendants failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof; suspicious circumstances included the testator's debilitated health, inconsistent testimonies from attesting witnesses, and a failure of signatures to match admitted samples under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable without a specific prayer to declare the Will and Gift Deed null and void, and whether the defendants established the valid execution of these documents to confer title over the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in a comprehensive suit for title, a separate prayer for cancellation of rival documents is not mandatory. The propounder of a Will must remove all legitimate suspicions regarding its execution. Since the gift deed was unregistered and the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and signature discrepancies, the legal heirs' title via succession prevails.
Result: Appeal Suit is dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree in OS.No.5 of 1997.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued suit not maintainable without specific prayer to cancel Will and Gift Deed; respondents contended documents invalid and no separate prayer needed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
3. Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of trial court affirmed. (Para 61 , 62 )
4. Is a specific prayer for cancellation of a Will necessary in a suit for declaration of title when the propounder sets up the Will?
No; in a comprehensive suit, the court can examine genuineness and validity without a separate prayer, and the propounder bears the burden of proof. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
5. What is the burden of proof on the propounder of a Will when its execution is disputed?
The propounder must prove due execution under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and must dispel all suspicious circumstances. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 55 )
6. Can an unregistered Gift Deed confer title to immovable property?
No; an unregistered Gift Deed is void under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and confers no rights. (Para 42 , 57 )
7. Under what conditions may a court compare signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act?
The court may compare signatures when there are admitted or proved signatures of the person, and such comparison is permissible to test genuineness. (Para 36 , 37 , 59 )
JUDGMENT :
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.
1. The instant Appeal Suit has been filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree in OS.No.5 of 1997, dt.26.04.1999, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District.
2. For brevity and better understanding of the case, the parties will hereinafter be referred as they are arrayed in the suit.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit seeking declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering into the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late Kamsali Krishnaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule properties and he contracted three marriages and first wife being Smt. Alivelamma, the plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah, born through first wife Smt. Alivelamma and after the death of first wife, Smt. Alivelamma, the said late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah married the 1st plaintiff around 50 years back and thereafter, as the 1st plaintiff could not conceive, late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah married one Smt. Nagalakshmamma, who died issueless about six years prior to the filing of the said suit. In brief, the 1st plaintiff is the second wife, and the 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah born through Alivelamma.
4. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that besides the suit schedule properties, late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah had some more lands, which were disposed of to meet the family requirements and further, he owned a house at Srirangapur, which became dilapidated and thereafter constructed houses bearing No.14-23 and 14-24, at Wanaparthy and it is stated that the said house still stands in the name of 1st plaintiff. It is further stated that the said Kamsali Krishnaiah also purchased another house, which is in Kaman area of Wanaparthy, however it was sold by the 1st plaintiff to meet the medical expenditure of late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah. Late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah was a goldsmith and was carrying on business at Wanaparthy. Simultaneously, he was also managing agriculture at Srirangapur, and the said suit schedule property was being cultivated by late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah. It is further stated that the plaintiff No.2 was married to one Meghanatha Chary of Kollapur and nothing was given to her at the time of marriage. Subsequently, late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah expired on 02.09.1996 in the house of the 1st plaintiff at Wanaparthy due to ailments as he suffered from fracture of his pelvic bone about five years prior to his death by an accidental fall at the house of Kumaraswamy at Wanaparthy.
5. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff provided all the medical treatment to her husband late Krishnaiah at various places and that late Sri Krishnaiah was not able to write and sign for three or four years preceding his death as his nervous system was impaired partially affecting his movement of fingers for couple of months and was under constant treatment. The defendants are the sons of one Madhavachary and their grandfather Sri Janaiah was the step brother of Kamsali Krishnaiah, and none of them or other near and dear relatives were in cordial terms with late Sri Kamsali Krishnaiah, and they had nothing to do with the properties of Kamsali Krishnaiah.
6. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they have exercised all rights as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and there was no occasion to Kamsali Krishnaiah to bequeath any of the properties to anyone. It is also contended that the last rites of Kamsali Krishnaiah were performed by the plaintiffs alone. Further, when Kamsali Krishnaiah was bedridden due to fractured pelvic bone, the defendants with malafide intention tried to disturb his possession over the suit schedule properties and tried to threaten the ryots and also tried to manip
