THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal filed by the appellants - defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.775 of 2010 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The parties are addressed herein 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 defendant No.1 had two sons. The eldest son by name N.C.Parthban is the defendant No.2 and younger son is by name late Nerlakotta Chinnappa Magesh. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Chinnappa Magesh and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Chinnappa Magesh. It is their case that the defendants executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.4548 of 2009 dated 02.12.2009 in favour of Chinnappa Magesh i.e. the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and that it is an unconditional gift deed. The possession was also handedover to Chinnappa Magesh and the tenants in the said property paid rents to the Donee i.e. Chinnappa Magesh till his death. While so, said Chinnappa Magesh died on 28.03.2010 due to AIDS and the plaintiffs are the only surviving legal heirs of Magesh. Thereafter, the defendants started ill-treating the plaintiffs and they executed a registered revocation of gift settlement deed bearing document No.1908 of 2010 dated 24.04.2010. During the life time of Magesh, the defendants and Magesh sold away a portion of the property abutting the suit property to third parties in August, 2009 prior to the execution of gift deed in favour of Magesh. It is their case that as Magesh suffered from AIDS for a period of more than 10 years they incurred heavy debts for medication and also that he was not doing business properly and thus, incurred loss, due to which they incurred debts. It is their case that since the gift deed was executed out of love and affection and there was also immediate acceptance of the same, the defendants have no right to revoke the said gift deed by unilateral cancellation, thus, they sought for cancellation of the said revocation deed under document No.1908 of 2010.

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments in the petition but they have admitted the execution of gift deed dated 02.12.2009. It is their case that they executed the gift deed to secure the future life of Magesh and that since he died, the Gift Deed need not be continued and thereby they cancelled the gift deed and that they sold away the property abutting the suit schedule property, out of which the sale consideration of Rs.20 Lakhs was taken by Magesh towards his share and thus, the contention of plaintiffs that they incurred debts for his treatment is denied. They further contended that possession was not delivered though they executed the gift deed and thus, they have revoked the gift deed after the death of Magesh and that the plaintiffs have no right to seek for its cancellation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial.

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare the execution of the registered revocation of gift settlement deed dated 24.04.2010 executed by the defendants to revoke the registered gift settlement deed dated 02.12.2010 executed by the defendants as null and void?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. To what relief?”

6. At the time of trial, the plaintiffs got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The defendants got examined DWs

1 and 2, but no documents were marked.

7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit cancelling the revocation deed by declaring it as null and void and also has granted consequential perpetual injunction. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present