* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT +

S.A No.1054 of 2016 % 02-01-2017 #Smt. Syamala Raja Kumari and others.

….Appellants.

Vs.

$ Alla Seetharavamma and another.

…. Respondents.

!Counsel for the petitioner : Kowturu Pavan Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent: Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 2014 SC 2906

2. 2013 (5) ALD 711

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT SECOND APPEAL No.1054 of 2016 Date:02.01.2017 Between:

Smt. Syamala Raja Kumari and others.

... Appellants.

AND Alla Seetharavamma and another.

...Respondents.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT SECOND APPEAL No.1054 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Vide the present second appeal, the appellants have assailed the Judgment & Decree dated 19-10-2016 passed in A.S.No.75/2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur whereby confirmed the Judgment & Decree dated 12-11-2015 passed in O.S.No.50/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

2. The appellants have filed the present second appeal on the substantial questions of law as under:-

“1. Whether the Courts below were justified in considering the Ex.A1/Ex.B-2 deed dated 19-03-2005 executed by S. Narapa Reddy as an irrevocable gift settlement deed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs though the recitals in the said deed provided for retaining of life interest in the property in S. Narapa Reddy himself and after his demise to his wife?

2. Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the revocation deeds executed by S. Narapa Reddy were void and not binding upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 even in the absence of any prayer sought for by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this regard?

3. Whether both the Courts were justified granting the reliefs sought by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the absence of any prayer in suit against the revocation deeds executed by the father of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also the substantial registered sale deed dated 04-04-2012 in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3?

4. Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are not bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration merely because the counsel for the appellant No.1 had received notice about the filing of the suit on 02-04-2012 and the sale deeds in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3 were executed on 04-04-2012?”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the document-Ex.A1 executed is a Will, not a gift deed and the Will can be conditional and revocable, if revoked in the same manner as executed earlier. Admittedly, Ex.A1 is a registered document, which can be revoked subsequently by another registered document, but the issue before the Court below was that whether the document-Ex.A1 was a Will or a gift deed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said document was a Will and in Will, some conditions can be affixed while exhibiting such document, whereas in case of gift, the said document is absolute and there cannot be any condition. In case of gift, whether it is gifted in favour of some one out of love and affection or not gifted any of the property over a right therein.

5. On a perusal of the impugned order, the Court below has discussed that when the gift may be suspended or revoked. For the said purpose, Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-

“126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.—The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift, which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.

A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want

or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might

be rescinded.

Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.

Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect

the rights of transferees for consideration without