A Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family cannot gift joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, making such a transaction void.

JUDGMENT:

The plaintiffs in OS.No.87 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gooty are the appellants. The respondent is the defendant in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the appellants against the respondent to declare original of Ex.A2/registered Gift Deed, dated 13.03.2006 executed by their father in favour of the respondent in respect of suit schedule property as null and void, and to cancel the said Gift Deed.

2. The appellants and the respondent hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendant, stating that the plaint schedule property is joint family property of themselves and their father late Mr.P.Balarami Reddy. The said property is open site situated at Tadipatri town. It is the contention of the plaintiff that themselves and their father were coparceners of Hindu Joint Family and each of them are having equal rights over suit schedule property. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that their father had purchased the plaint schedule property with joint family funds in an auction, sale held by the Co-operative Department in EP No.12 of 1978-79 in execution of the decree No.111/77-78, dated 29.08.1978, accordingly original of Ex.A1/sale certificate was issued in favour of their father on 28.04.1981. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that their father was an agriculturist having ancestral property and with the yield derived from the joint family funds, their father had purchased the suit schedule property, due to that their father had no separate income to purchase the same. The plaintiffs submit that recently they came to know that their father gifted the suit schedule property to the defendant under registered Gift Deed, dated 13.03.2006, but the possession was not delivered as stipulated in the Gift Deed. They also stated that as the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of themselves and their father, their father alone had no right to execute Ex.A2/Gift Deed in favour of the defendant without their consent being coparceners, due to that the defendant will not get any right or title over the same under original of Ex.A2/Gift Deed, which is not valid. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that it is averred in original of Ex.A2/Gift Deed that the defendant is the daughter of their father Mr.P.Balarami Reddy, but in fact the defendant is not the daughter of Mr.P.Balarami Reddy, but she is brother’s daughter of Mr.P.Balarami Reddy. They submit that the defendant was not residing in India as on the date of Ex.A2/Gift Deed, dated 13.03.2006, but she was residing at United States of America, and they came to know that the family members of the defendant induced their father and got executed original of Ex.A2/Gift Deed in favour of the defendant. They submit that their father died recently, leaving them as his legal heirs, and their mother pre-deceased him and then they issued Ex.A3/legal notice, dated 28.01.2010 to the defendant to cancel original of Ex.A2/Gift Deed, who issued Ex.A5/reply notice with false grounds. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs’ inter-alia, stating that Mr.P.Balarami Reddy had executed registered Gift Deed, dated 13.03.2006 voluntarily with love and affection towards her, who is no other than her Senior Paternal Uncle which is aware of the same by the plaintiffs by the date of execution of Gift Deed, dated 13.03.2006. She submits that she was present at Tadipatri on the date of execution of Gift Deed, and she accepted the same. It is also the contention of the defendant that Mr.P.Balarami Reddy being ‘Kartha’ of Hindu Joint Family executed Gift Deed in her favour in respect of the suit schedule property, which is also binding on the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have no right to question the same. She admitted that Mr.P.Balarami Reddy had purchased the suit schedule property in the au