THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT No.1021 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the defendant in O.S.No.51 of 2010 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy (for short, ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned Judgment, the trial Court allowed the Suit, declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas, in Survey No.+, Dharmasagar, Kandi village, Sangareddy mandal (for short, ‘suit schedule property’).

2. Heard Mr. R. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant; and Mr. A. Gokul, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as plaintiff, and defendant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.51 of 2010 before the trial Court, contending that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural dry land, to an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas, in Survey No.+, Dharmasagar, Kandi village, Sangareddy mandal; that in February 2004, due to her husband's serious health issues requiring frequent medical treatment, she was in urgent need of Rs. 3 lakhs, and she approached the defendant (her younger brother), for financial assistance and expressed willingness to mortgage the subject land as security; that the defendant agreed to arrange the loan through a third party, as he did not have the amount himself; that in February 2005, the defendant paid the plaintiff Rs. 20,000 in cash and asked her to sign a document which he claimed was a mortgage deed, and trusting her brother, the plaintiff signed the document and accompanied him to the Sub-Registrar's office for registration without verifying its contents; that the defendant retained the original document and never paid the remaining Rs. 2.8 lakhs, and despite repeated requests, he continued to make false promises and delays; that in 2009, the plaintiff discovered that the document she signed in 2005 was not a mortgage deed but a gift deed executed in favor of the defendant, obtained by fraud and misrepresentation while exploiting her financial vulnerability; that she immediately obtained a certified copy of the deed and executed a registered deed of cancellation in October 2009; that the defendant, however, has remained in illegal possession of the schedule land and refused to vacate despite several demands; and therefore the plaintiff filed the Suit seeking a declaration that the gift deed is void due to fraud, and hence prays for restoration of her ownership and possession of the property.

3.1 The defendant contested the Suit by filing his written statement. It is contended by the defendant that there has been no fraud or misrepresentation on his part. It is further contended that the plaintiff never approached him for a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs or that he induced her to sign a Gift Deed under the pretense of it being a Mortgage Deed. It is his case that the schedule land was actually purchased by him and his family members in the name of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1995 (Document No. 148/1995), solely because she was his sister and her family was financially unstable due to her husband’s prolonged illness and inability to work; that he and his family bore the medical expenses of the plaintiff's husband, took him to various hospitals for treatment, and even met the funeral and last rites expenses upon his demise; that they (i.e., the defendants) even purchased a plot at Miyapur in the name of the plaintiff’s husband, and after his demise, constructed a house there for the plaintiff and her family, and continued to support them, and in recognition of these services and support, the plaintiff, out of her own free will, executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed (Document No. 1333/2005 dated 07.02.2005) in favour of the defendant and delivered possession of the schedule lan