A valid gift deed, once accepted and acted upon, cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the donor; the only remedy is a suit for cancellation. Mesne profits must be determined via an inquiry from the date of suit.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Order 20 Rule 12 - Order 41 Rule 22 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122, 123, and 126 - Gift deed - Once a gift is validly made, accepted, and acted upon, it becomes irrevocable and cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the donor - A subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by the donor is void - The donor must file a suit for cancellation if they wish to rescind the gift. (Paras 27, 28, 31, 32, 34)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 126 - Gift - Suspension or revocation - A gift cannot be revoked except in the cases enumerated in Section 126; a gift cannot be revoked at the mere will of the donor, and a revocation deed in the absence of such a clause is meaningless. (Paras 31.2, 34)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 20 Rule 12 - Mesne profits - In a suit for recovery of immovable property, the court can direct an inquiry as to mesne profits from the institution of the suit until delivery of possession - Rejecting the claim for mesne profits without ordering an inquiry is an error. (Paras 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant are brothers. The mother of the parties executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.A4) on 26.02.2007 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for the entire property. The mother later executed a unilateral Cancellation of Gift Deed (Ex.A5) on 17.10.2007, and subsequently executed a Cancellation of Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.A6) on 10.03.2008. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the first floor, eviction of the appellant-defendant, and mesne profits. The trial court declared the respondent-plaintiff as the owner and directed the appellant-defendant to vacate, but rejected the claim for mesne profits. Both sides appealed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's declaration of ownership, finding that the gift deed (Ex.A4) was validly executed and accepted, making it irrevocable. The unilateral cancellation deed (Ex.A5) was held to be void. The appellant-defendant's claim of adverse possession was rejected as his possession was permissive. The court also found that the trial court erred in rejecting the claim for mesne profits and directed that an inquiry be conducted under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC.

Issues: The main issues were whether the gift deed was valid and irrevocable, whether the unilateral cancellation deed was valid, and whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid gift deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the donor; the only remedy is to file a suit for cancellation. Mesne profits are recoverable from the date of suit, and an inquiry must be directed for this purpose.

Result: CCCA No.439 of 2018 filed by the appellant-defendant is dismissed. Cross Objections No.22 of 2019 filed by the respondent-plaintiff is allowed, and the matter is remanded for an inquiry into mesne profits. No costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CCCA.NO.439 OF 2018 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.22 OF 2019 Dated: 07^th APRIL, 2026 BETWEEN :

CCCA No.439 of 2018:

Suryakant S.Mahendrakar … Appellant/Defendant AND Sainath Mahendrakar, S/o.Late Sakharam Mahindrakar, Aged about 54 years, 2^nd Floor of premises bearing No.5-4-477 & 5-4-482, Kattalmandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad – 500 001. …Respondent/Plaintiff CROSS OBJECTIONS No.22 of 2019:

Sainath Mahendrakar … Appellant/Plaintiff AND Mr. Suryakant S.Mahendrakar, S/o.Late Sri Sakharam Mahendrakar, Hindu, aged about 74 years, Occ:Business, R/o.First Floor premises bearing M.No.5-4-477 &

5-4-482, situated at Kattalmandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad – 500 001.

…Respondent/Defendant

COMMON J U D G M E N T

CCCA No.439 of 2018:

1.1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') assailing the judgment and decree in OS No.444 of 2009, dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad where under respondent-plaintiff was declared as owner of the First Floor and the appellant-defendant was directed to vacate the premises.

1.2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS No.444 of 2009.

Cross Objections No.22 of 2019

2.1. This Memorandum of Cross Objections is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree passed in OS No.444 of 2009, dated 14.09.2018 by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad where under claim for mesne profits was rejected.

2.2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be herein after referred to as arrayed in CCCA No.439 of 2018 as appellant-

defendant and respondent-plaintiff.

4. The relief prayed by the respondent-plaintiff in OS.No.444 of

2009 is as under:

a) Plaintiff be declared as owner of the suit schedule property i.e. First Floor forming part and parcel and covered by Municipal No.5-4-477 and 5-4-482 situated at Kattalmandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad as per the schedule of the property given in the plaint and delineated in red colour in the plan annexed hereto.

b) Defendant be directed to vacate the suit schedule property and actual, vacant and physical possession thereof be delivered to the plaintiff.

c) Defendant be directed to pay mesne profits, damages and compensation for wrongful use and occupation at Rs.12,000/- p.m. from the date of the suit till the date of vacating the premises and delivery of actual, vacant and physical possession to the plaintiff.

d) Costs of the suit be allowed.

e) Such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may found entitled be also granted.

5. The suit schedule is as under:

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY All that First Floor admeasuring 1000 Sq.ft area of construction with

1/3^rd land area share in the entire property covered by and forming part and parcel of the premises bearing No.5-4-477 and 5-4-482 situated at Nampally Station Road, Kattalmandi, Hyderabad – 500 001 and delineated in red colour in the plan annexed hereto and bounded as under :

On the East : Partly by property No.5-4-483 and partly Kattalmandi Road and partly 5-4-484 On the West : Partly by property No.5-4-476 and partly 5-4-486 On the South : Partly by House No.5-4-484, 5-4-486 On the North : Partly by property No.5-4-481 and partly by lane

6.1. The plaint in OS.No.444 of 2009 states that the mother of the respondent-plaintiff by name Smt.Radha Bai Mahendrakar was the absolute owner and possessor of the entire property covered by Municipal No.5-4-477 & 5-4-482 consisting of Ground, First and Second Floors situated at Nampally Station Road, leading from Abids Road, GPO Circle towards Nampally Station. Respondent- plaintiff and his mother are residing in the Second floor of the building. Smt.Radha Bai Mahendrakar permitted the appellant- defendant to use the First floor and he wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12542

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADHONOURABLE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAOSuryakant S. Mahindrakar – AppellantVersusSainath Mahindrakar – RespondentCCCA 439/2018

A valid gift deed, once accepted and acted upon, cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the donor; the only remedy is a suit for cancellation. Mesne profits must be determined via an inquiry from the date of suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Suryakant S. Mahindrakar – Appellant
Versus
Sainath Mahindrakar – Respondent
CCCA 439/2018