THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.380 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.282 of 2010 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the

trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court is that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of deceased J.Ramulu and plaintiff No.2 is his daughter. Defendant No.1 is the younger brother of Ramulu and defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1. It is their case that during his life time Ramulu purchased an open plot from Padmashali Housing Cooperative Housing Society through a registered sale deed during 1979 and thereafter, he constructed ground and first floor and the house number was allotted as No.1- 3-1/A/42. Ramulu and plaintiffs were residing in the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 who is the younger brother

of Ramulu used to stay with them since his childhood as their father passed away when Ramulu was aged around 15 years. Admittedly, defendant No.1 was brought up by Ramulu and the plaintiff No.1 also has treated the defendant No.1 as their own. After marriage, defendant No.1 stayed in the first floor of the suit schedule property at request of Ramulu and that they were enjoying a very good relationship during the life time of Ramulu. In the year 2003, Ramulu suffered Kidney malfunctioning and was on dialysis, when he became bed ridden he expressed his intention to the plaintiff No.1 to get the suit schedule property transferred in favour of plaintiff No.2 who is their only daughter. Thereafter, Ramulu and plaintiff No.1 discussed the said proposal with defendant No.1 and as he was well educated and as they have utmost confidence in him, defendant No.1 also accepted the said proposal and took over the responsibility of getting the suit schedule property gifted to plaintiff No.2. On 03.02.2003 defendant No.1 took Ramulu and plaintiffs to registrar’s office and got a gift deed registered. Subsequently, defendant No.1 informed them that the registration of gift is complete and that the original document shall be collected by him for which he requires the original sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule property existing in the name of Ramulu and as the days passed by, Ramulu health got deteriorated, and they forgot about the issue of collecting the original gift deed. After the death of Ramulu, both the plaintiffs continued to reside in the ground floor and defendants were residing in the first floor. Subsequently, the marriage of plaintiff No.2 was performed by plaintiff No.1 and since then the plaintiff No.2 was residing in Bombay and plaintiff No.1 was staying alone in the ground floor and the tenants in one of the portion for the ground floor used to pay rents to plaintiff No.1. In the year 2009, the health of plaintiff No.1 got deteriorated so she sought the opinion of defendant No.1 in asking plaintiff No.2 and her family to shift to Hyderabad to stay with them but defendant No.1 became wild and ever since then his attitude got changed and he started harassing the tenants of the plaintiff No.1 and in the month of March, 2010 he made the tenants to vacate the premises and proclaim that he is the real owner of the suit schedule property. Then, the plaintiff No.1 was taken by surprise and shared the information with plaintiff No.2. Then, they came down to Hyderabad and inquired about the situation and then, got to know that the registered gift deed executed by Ramulu is in favour of defendant No.1 but not in favour of plaintiff No.2. Then the plaintiffs realized the mischief played by defendant No.1 and obtained a copy of the registered gift deed executed by Ra