The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2 : SRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I I I I I : THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR I Revision Petitio 1 nd 2848 COMMO ORDER: Sirrce both the Civil Revision Petitions are fild by the same petitioner and arise out of comrnon order dt.06.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.169 and 170 of 2022 in O.S.No.351 of 202t, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.2861 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dt.06.07.m23 passed in I.A.No.169 of 2023 in O.S.No.351 of 2027 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, seeking a direction to the 4h respondent in the underlying interlocutory appllcation to restore the water supply to CAN No.618684676.

3. C.R.P.No.2848 of 2023is filed aggrieved by the order dt.06.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2023 in O.S.No.351 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, seeking a direction to the 4th respondent in the underlying interlocutory application to restore electricity service of Meter No.2101 11583 SC No.2101 00168.

4. The revision petitioner herein is the petitiofler in both the underlying interlocutory applications and the 2nd defendant in the suit fihd 2 by the 1d respondent herein as plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction against the 3'd respondent and the petitioner herein.

5. The brief facts giving rise to feign of the present revision petitions are that, the 1s respondent herein had executed a gift deed in respect of part of the property admeasuring 175 square yards with constructed area of 620 square feet bearing Municipal No.36-99 in favour of the 3.d respondent herein; that the aforesaid property on being gifted, the 3d respondent was put in possession by the donee; that the 3d respondent as donee is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property by accepting the gift; that the 4h respondent in the underlying interlocutory applications, at the behest of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have disconnected the water and electricity connection of the property which is the subject matter of suiu and that the water and electricity connection being essential services for enjoyment of the propefty gifted to him by the 1st respondent on 2L12.2015, the 4h respondent in both the underlying applications be directed to restore the same.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the 1n respondent claims of having revoked the gift deed executed by him on

20.02.2019, and having gifted the same in favour of the 2nd respondent, on 01.03.2019, the gift once executed and accepted by the donee cannot be revoked, unless it is a conditional gift. "/ 3

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the registered gift d€fJd dt.21.12.2015 is not conditional gift deed, the unilateral cancelhtion of the said gift deed by the Is r€spondent and execution of another gift deed in favour of the 2d respondent is void and as such. respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot prevent the petitioner from enjoying part of the premises bearing House No.36-99 covered by the registered gift deed by not allowing restoration of the water and electricity connection to the said property.

8. The petitioner further contends that since water and electricity of the said property are disconnected at the behest of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner had filed the underlying interlocutory applications before the Court below for their restoration, in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, vriCe O.S.No.351 of 2021, pending consideration of the aforesaid suit; and that the Coud below had erroneously dismissed the same.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 would contend that the petitioner who is the 2nd defendant in the suit has no locus standi to maintain the underlying interlocutory applications before the Court below, or for that matter. the present civil revision petitions, inasmuch as the petitioner heretn is not the donee under the registered gift deed dt.21.12.2015 for him either to claim having been put in, possession of ttrc property gifted or to have water and 4 electricity connection of the suit schedule property restored for his enjoyment.

10. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the 1st respondent herein had gifted northern part of the property bearing House No.36-99 in favour of his grandson i.e. the 3'd respondent herein; that the aforesaid gift was with a precondition that the petitioner herein who is the father of 3'd respondent/donee would look after the well being of the 1( respondent and his wife during their life time being the younger son; and that as the petitioner failed to look after the well being of the 1d respondent and his wife, the gift deed dt.28.02.2019 has been revoked and another gift deed was executed in favour of the 2d respondent who is the elder son of the l't respondent.

11. The respondents further contend that since, the petitioner himself admits to be staying in another house with Door No.36-111/1, the claim of the petitioner that the provision of electricity and water connection being essential services, for enjoyment of the suit schedule property cannot be accepted as valid claim and by seeking the relief the petitioner is trying to take possession of the suit schedule property even before the claim and counter claim are adjudicated by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 5

13. While the petitioner claims of the 1s respondent in the underlying interlocutory applications having gifted part of the property in favour of his son i.e. the 3'd respondent herein and being put in possession' the 1r respondent contended that ttle gift of part of the suit schedule property in favour of the 3'd respondent herein, was with a pre-condition that the petitioner herein, who is the father of 3d respondent and younger son of ln respondent would look after him and his wife well during their life tim€; that as the petitioner failed to take care of him and his wife' he had revoked the gift deed dt.2l.L2'2015 executed by him on 28'02'2019 and executing another gift deed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein firstly' it is to be noted that the correctness of cancellation of gift deed executed on 21.12.2015 and in its place execution of another gift deed on 01.03.2019 is subject matter of claim and counter claim in the suit filed vrde O.S.l,lo.35 l of 2021. Secondly, the gift deed dt'21'12'2015 is executed by the ls respondent trcrein in favour of the 3'd respondent herein and not in favour of the petitioner who is the father of the 3'd respondent, for him to claim for being put in possession and thus' the provision of water and electricity connection are essential services for him to enjoy the Property.

14. Further, it is to be noted that the 3d respoMent being the donee of the suit schedule property and in the absence of any authorization beinq given by him in favour of the petit'loner, the petitioner cannot maintain the 6 underlying interlocutory applications before the Court below and the present revisions thereagainst before this Court.

15. The claim of the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory applications is that on the lst respondent on executing the gift deed, ail the documents connected with the subject property having been handed over to them and thus, being entiiled to approach the 4h respondent in the underlying interrocutory apprications for provision/restoration of the services of water and erectricity are concerned, it is to be noted that the suit schedule property i,e., House bearing No.36-99 is a compact block of one single house has been divided into two parts with only one part being gifted in favour of the petitioner,s son/the 3d respondent being grandson of the 1( respondent and the remaining part of the house being retained by the 1( respondent herein, the petitioner cannot craim of excrusive right over the property to seek restoration of water and electricity connections provided to the premises bearing H.No.36-99, wherein the property gifted to the 3'd respondent is situated, more so, when admittedly, the petitioner is living separately in another house nearby.

16. Further, it is also to be noted that though the ld respondent had executed a gift deed in respect of northern portion of premises bearing No.36-99 in Favour of the 3d respondent herein, it is not shown to this Court as to why no steps have been taken for mutating the subject property on to the name of the 3.d respondent till 2019, when the said gift 7 deed was revoked. Thus, the petitioner herein raould not be entitled to seek restoration of connection in his name rnore so, wtrcn he is not the beneficial owner under the gift deed'

17. Thus, it is only when the counter claim of the 3d respondent herein in the suit filed by respondent Nos,1 and 2 herein vide O.S'No'351 of 2021 is adjudicated upon, the 3d respondent can claim title to the suit schedule property.

18. The Court below while considering the underlying interlocutory applications, taking note of the fact that the water and electricity though are basic requirements, had noted that in order to get interirn direction for provision/restoration of the aforesaid services is required to prima facie prove to be in possession of the subject property' Further, the Court below also noted that the revision petitioner did not seek any relief in the suit against the respondents for him to fik the underlying interlocutory applications as the subject propefi stands mutated on to the name of the 2nd respondent and without deciding whether such mutation on to the name of the 2nd respondent is correct or not which is to be decided after kial, granting the relief in the underlying interloctltory applications would be premature.

19. The said finding recorded by the Court below, while dismissing the underlying interlocutory applications in the opinion of this court cannot be t I ( -( said to be either illegal or perverse for this Court to interfere in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

20. fhus, both the Civil Revision petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 2L. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revision petitiohs shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTVBEGISTRAR L\)> SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 2. One CC to Sri D.Ravishankar Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies Ks/KR \ HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 COMMON ORDER ./...:..-':-.-:-_. I - .')r' " I 3 0 JUI zl[l L,] *\a /. .. * .y' \)./-./' CRP.No.2861 AND 2848 ot 2023 \ \.., ''i- " ", ' .l'. : -'l - t .' Dismissing the C.R.Ps Without costs. l?( b