Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

ITEM No. 1A Court No. 3 SECTION XIIA

(For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4195 OF 2008

RENIKUNTLA RAJAMMA (D) BY LRS..

Appellant (s)

VERSUS

K.SARWANAMMA

Respondent (s)

Date : 17.07.2014 This Petition was called on for judgment

today.

For Appellant (s)

Mr. Nitin S.Tambwekar, Adv.

Mr. B.S.Sai, Adv.

Mr. K.Rajeev, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. V.R.Anumolu, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur pronounced

Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble

Mr. Justice C.Naggapan

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed

judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Shashi Sareen)

(Veena Khera)

Court Master

Court Master

Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4195 OF 2008

Renikuntla Rajamma (d) by LRs.

…Appellants

Versus

K. Sarwanamma

…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1.

An apparent conflict between two earlier decisions rendered

by this Court one in Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v.

Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 255

and the other in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & Ors.

(2004) 1 SCC 581 has led to this reference to a larger bench

for an authoritative pronouncement as to the true and correct

interpretation of Sections 122 and 123 of The Transfer of

Property Act, 1882. Before we deal with the precise area in

which the two decisions take divergent views, we may briefly set

out the factual matrix in which the controversy arises.

2.

The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal filed O.S. No.979 of

1989 for a declaration to the effect that revocation deed dated

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

5^th March, 1986 executed by the defendant-appellant purporting

to revoke a gift deed earlier executed by her was null and void.

The plaintiff’s case as set out in the plaint was that the gift deed

executed by the defendant-appellant was valid in the eyes of law

and had been accepted by the plaintiff when the donee-

defendant had reserved to herself during for life, the right to

enjoy the benefits arising from the suit property. The purported

revocation of the gift in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in

terms of the revocation deed was, on that basis, assailed and a

declaration about its being invalid and void ab initio prayed for.

3.

The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant herein

on several grounds including the ground that the gift deed

executed in favour of the plaintiff was vitiated by fraud, mis-

representation and undue influence. The parties led evidence

and went through the trial with the trial Court eventually holding

that the deed purporting to revoke the gift in favour of the

plaintiff was null and void. The Trial Court found that the

defendant had failed to prove that the gift deed set up by the

plaintiff was vitiated by fraud or undue influence or that it was a

sham or nominal document. The gift, according to trial Court,

had been validly made and accepted by the plaintiff, hence,

irrevocable in nature. It was also held that since the donor had

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

taken no steps to assail the gift made by her for more than 12

years, the same was voluntary in nature and free from any

undue influence, mis-representation or suspicion. The fact that

the donor had reserved the right to enjoy the property during

her life time did not affect the validity of the deed, opined the

trial Court.

4.

In the first appeal preferred against the said judgment and

decree, the first Additional District Judge, Warangal affirmed the

view taken by the trial Court and held that the plaintiff