The High Court · 2025

THE HON ,BLE SRI.'USTTCE NAG ESH BHE]IMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT No.1021 of 2013 JUDGMENT: 'Ihis is an appcal filcd by tl.re def-endant in O.S.No.5l of 2010 challengir.rg the Judgn.rent and Decree dated 2l .10.201 3 prs:ied by the Judgc, Family Court-curn-VIl Additional District and Sessions . rdge, Medak, at Sangareddy (tbr r;hofl, 'the trial Couft'). By the impugrrt d Judgment, thc trial Courl allowed rhe Suit, declaring the plaintilf as the absolute owner ol- the land to arl extent of Ac.2- l0 guntas, in Survey No.+, L)Jrrrnlasagar, Kandi village, Sangared J1' rnar.rdal (lbr shor1, 'suit schedule prop:rty'). I{card Mr R, Chandrashekar Reddy, leamed .:ounsel fbr the 2. appellant/defenda nt; and Mr. A. Gokul, leamed counsel for the respondent/plaint il1-. Pcrused the record. For the sake of i:onvenience, the partics vr,ill be ref'elred as plaintiff, and defendant.

3. Briel t-acts of the case arc that tl're plaintiff fitcd () S.No.5 1 of 20 1 0 before the trial Court, contending that she is the ab I rlule orvner and possessor o1'the agricultural dry land, to an extent of rt.:.2-10 guntas, in Survey No. t, Dharmasagar, Kandi village, Sangaredd ,' rnandal; tirat in February 2004, drre to her husband's serious health issues r::quiring frequent medical treatmen.:, she was in urgent need of Rs. 3 lakhs, ar,l she approached the defendant (her,vounger brother), for financial assislance and expressed willingness to moftgage the subject land as security; tlrat tl.re det-endant agreed to arrang,r thc loan through a third party, as he rlid not have the amount himself; rl.rat in February 2005, the defendant pai,. the plaintiff Rs. 20,000 in cash and asked her to sign a document which Lc claimed rvas a mortgage deed. and trusting her brother, the plaintit-f sig r ed the document 2 as,1021_2013 N8K, ] and accompanied hirn to the Sub-Registrar's office for registration without veri&ing its contents; that the dcf-endant retained the original document and never paid the remaining Rs. 2.8 lakhs, and despite repeatcd requests, he continued to make false pronriscs and delays; that in 1009, the plaintilT discovcred that the document she signed in 2005 was not a n-rortgagc dced but a gilt deed executed in favor of the del-endant, obtained by fiaud and m isrepresentation while exploiting her tlnarrcia[ vulnerability; that she ir.nmediately obtained a certified copy of the deed and executed a registered deed of cancellation in October 20091 that the def'endant, however, has remained in illegal possession ol the schcdule land and refirsed to vacate despite several dernands; and thcrcfole the ptaintitT tiled the Suit seeking a dcclaration that the gift deed is void due to fiaud, and hcnce prays lor restoration of her ownership and possession of the property.

3.1 The defendant contested the Suit by filing his written staterrent. It is contended by the defendant that there has been no fraud or m isrepresentation on his par1. lt is further coutended that the plaintiff nevcr approached him for a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs or that he induced hcr to sign a Gift Deecl under the pretense of it being a Mortgage Deed- It is his case that the schedule land was actually purchased by him and his family rnernbers in the name of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 06.01 . 1995 (Docurnent No. I48/1995), solely because she was his sister and her tamily was linancially unstable due to her husband's prolonged illnoss and inability to work; that he and his tamily bore the rnedical expenses ol- the plaintiffs husband, took him to various hospitals fbr treatment, and even met the funeral and last rites expenses upon his demise; that they (i.e., the def'endants) even purchased a plot at Miyapur in the name ol the plaintiff's husband, and aftcr his demise, constructed a housc therc for tllc plaintill'and - iL_-l{ i-}-:5}-. s-F tr'7 3 as 1021 2013 NBK, ] her farlily, and t'ontinued to suppoft them, and it-t rccc ltrilion of these serviccs and support, the ptaintifl-, out of her or'vn fi'e t ,r'ill. executed a registered Gift Scttlement l)ecd (Docurncnt No. I i.l3/2005 dated 07.02.2005) in lirvour of thc delbndant and delivered p,rsscssion of the schedrrle land to I'inr on the satnc day, and since tltcu the c . lcndant has becn in peaceful possossion and enioYuretlt of the laucl, s|i:rltlirlg substantial money on its der e loprrtent; that thc land was mutated iLr his narne in thc revenuc records, tnd he rvas issucd title deeds and pattadir-passbooks; that the def'endant has no knowledgc of the alleged canccllaticr ol'the Gift Deed and corrtends that thc cancellation deed raras created solel) L() Iile the present suit; that no notice rias given to thc defendant befbre sucl cattcellation and that the deed olcanccllation is invalid and not binding t,t titn.

3.2 The trial, after due enquiry by appreciating th oral evidence ol PW-l and the do:uurents Exs.Al to A7 adduccd on behr lof the plaintiflf, and the oral evirlcttce of DWs.l to 3, and the documert' ; Exs.B1 to Bl0 adduccd on beha ll' o1- the dcfendant, passed the impug r.:d .Iudgment and decrec, declaring the plaintitl'as absolute owner ofthe sui . .chedulc propelty and that the Gift Deed was gttt cxecuted by misrcpresentalion. and directed the defendant to ,lelivcr vacant possession of the suit scheduled land within two rnonths aparl fi'om paying the costs of the Suil. Challenging the judgment olthe trial Clour.t, the dclendant flled this appe t . l,earned counsel for the appellant/defendant cont,:rtded that the trial

4. court failed to aJrprcciate that the plaintiff was not entitl.d to a declaratiou of ownership or rccovery of possession with respect to tlte plaint schedule prope(y; that the dccree was granted in the absence of an r' reliable or legally acceptable evidence, and hetrce, the same is liable to bt :iet aside; that the plaintifT herseli in tl.re Cancellation Deed marked as I x.A2, stated that .l 4 ds 1021 2013 N8K, J family disputes arose only after the execution of the gift deed, and theretbre, it was cancelled to resolve those disputes, which is inconsistent u.ith her pleadings and evidence; that the trial courl also overlooked that the oral testilnony of PW I contradicts her own pleadings and the documentary evidence on record, i.e., Exs.A l to 47, maki,g it unfit fbr reliance; that therc was no evidence to estahlish that Ex.A1 (gift deed) wai obtained b1, liaud, m isrepresentation, undue influence, or any unconscionable conduct; that one of the attestors ol the Gift Decd was the plaintiff's husband, an educated govemment servant, lvho unfbftu,ately passed away before the suit was filed, further rveakeni,g thc plaintiff,s claim; that the appella,t also emphasized that the cancellation deed (Ex.A2) was unilaterally executed bchind the appellant's back, without any notice, nearly four and a halfyears after the gift deed was executed, and despite the fact that possession was delivered, revenue records were mutated, and patta passbooks were issued in thc appellant's name, thereby showing that the gift was acted upon and completed; that the trial courl failed to consider the cogent and reliable evidence of DWI ro DW3 and the documentary evidence (Exs.Bl to Bl0) produced on behalfofthe defendant; that the defendant had validly acquired title to the suit property for consideration and was the rightful owner; and such title cannot be casually nullified based on conjectures ancl assumptions; that the court emed in accepting evidence without there being corresponding pleadings and wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the def-enda,t, instead of placing it on thc plaintilf who approached the court seeking relief; and therefbre the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel lor the respondent/plaintiff submits the trial courl rightly appreciated the facts and passed the impugned judgrnent and there are no grounds to interfere and the appeal is therefore liable to be disrnissed. .:;;=ffi7 .,:..: v .- ,/ / 5 as-1021 2013 NBK, ]

6. Having conr;idered the respective contentions and prl 115gd the t'ecord, it may be noted th: essential dispute centers around the Ciil'" Deed (Ex.A1). The entire loundation of the plaintiff s case is her oral tc: titnony that she intended to sign a rnortgage deed but rvas tricked into sill iing a gift deed. Except such oral testitnony of an alleged "intentior'', there is no documentary eviclence to support her "intention" tha. she u'anted to moftgage the property as a collateral to the loan, like a loar agreement, or a prornissory note, c,r at least a written communication derni I Lding the alleged balance of Rs. 2,8 0,000/-. Further, the corrduct of plaintitf is inconsistent with her claim of lraud, i.e. she took no action lor over lt,trt years until the alleged discovery ol liaud (i.e., from February 2005 until \prit 2009), and she did not lodgr: a police complaint lor the alleged ].lfiaud, and this prolonged silence severely undennines her credibility. Ftu ther, the version of alleged fraud is contradicted by the attcstation of Ex.A 1 by the husband of the plaintift-. It 's to be noted that the gift deed (Ex.A1- -r,ft dced / Ex.B8- receipt) were attes;ted by the husband of the plaintiff. Whi ': the husband is deceased, his attr:station creates a strong presumption ,rf the plaintiffs awareness and consent to the nature of the document.

6.1 It is t,r be noted that in Smt. Dularia Devi vs. -'t,nardhan Singhl , the ptaintifftherein was an illiterate woman who put her t-rrrtnb in-rpression, and the document u'as a sale deed disguised as a gift. Whctr:as in the instant case, the plaintife, by her own admission, signed the ,rocument. More importantly,, the rlocument was exactly what it purpor.t'd to be: a Gift Settlement Deed. There was no misrepresentation as to thc character of the 1 AtR 1990 sc 1173 6 as 1021 2013 N8K, ] docurnent (a tlansfer document), only a belated allegation about its contents (Gift vs. Morlgage), which is not sufficient to void a registered document.

6.2 Further, the n'iaI court inf'erred "undue influence" merely h'om thc fact that the plaintifl u,as in f'inancial difhculty and the det'endant rvas her brother w'ho promised to arrange a loan. It is to be noted that the allegation of "undue influence" requires proof of a dominant position being used to coerce thc donor's will. A sibling relationship does not create a presurnption ol r-urdue influence. The plaintilf was a married woman with children, and there is no evidence she was mentally infirm or colnpletely dependent on the defendant, and therelbre merely because the plaintiff sought rnonetary. help lrom l.he det-endant does not make the plaintiff vulnerable and put the det-endant in a dorninant position to allege undue influence, and there is no "unconscionability" in the Ex.A1 transaction.

6.3 Further, the dei'endant's pleaded case-that he had supporled the plaintiffs family for years, including medical expenses and housing- provides a logical explanation for thc gift out of "love and affection," as recited in the Ex.Al-Deed itself. Further, the defendant produced compelling documentary evidence (Ex.B2 to 86) showing mutation of the land in his name in the revenue rccords immediately after the gift deed. The plaintilf produccd no evidence to show she remained in possession after February 2005. This evidence strongly corroborates the defendant's claim that the gift was accompanied by delivery of possession.

6.4 Furthermore, the trial court dismissed Ex.Bl (receipt for Rs. 4,95,0001-) on the ground that it was not mentioned in the written statement. However, it is to be noted that thcre is no plausible evidence to disbelieve t\ bonafides of execution of Ex.Al for the financial help and support extended by the defendant to the plaintiff over the course of medical illness l as 1021_2013 NBK, ] of plaintiff's husb;rnd and also fot' constructing a house for l'':r. Though DW2 and DW3 stated that the plaintilldidn'1 intend to sell the sr bject propedy, it is not their case tttat the Ciift Deed Ex.Al was fabricated 'r' t-alse.

6.5 It is to be notecl that rvhetl it is the admittetl fact bi' plaintiff, and defendar-rt, attd also DWs.2 and 3, that the defcndar. had immensely suppofted the plaintilf during rnedical condition ol- her I rrsbarrd, and even bore the last rites 3xpenses and also helped in hcr settletnct t b1'constructing a house in Miyacur, and furtherrnore, the husband o1' tl'c plaintiff is an attestor to Ex.,A.1, there cannot bc an assurnpti .r'l o1- lraud or misrepresentation on the part ofthe defcndant.

6.6 Furtltetmore. Ex.Al-Gift Deed is a legal clo': :mellt admittedly executed by the ptaintiff in lavour of the def-endant in a()t'5 and ever since the defendant has been in possession of the subject prt'perty by way of mutation of his ntrme in revenue records. And, it is only irr ',.009, the plaintiff sought cancellation of Ex.Al alleging that the defcndanr played liaud by misrepresentatiorr. At this j uncture, it is relevant to I rote that once a document has been registered and delivery of posscssior occurred, such a of Property Act, document is irrevocable under Section 126 of the -l'ranst: except under veqr specific conditions (e.g., Lnutual agreclrent. rescission as in a contract). Th,: plaintiff s unilateral cancellation of the ( iift Deed (Ex.42) is legally not su,stainable. The reason cited by the plrintiff stating that "disputes arose anong family members" only aftet gilt dt:,-:c[, is not a ground recognized by law for revoking a legatly executed Gifi I.leed. Furtheq the plaintiff herself admitted in cross-examination that thcr,r were no major disputes. Therefore, the unilateral cancellation by the p aintiff, is a nullity and cannot divest the defendant of the title already tlanslt'rred to him' 8 as-1021_2013 NBK, J

6.7 Further, the trial Courl placed undue ctnphasis on the defendant's failure to cxamiltc the second attesting u,itness. However, it is to be noted that the execution ol'a rcgistered document is proved by the document itscll. and thc burden to impugn the documcnt lies with the pcrsor-r challenging the docurnenr. Sincc the ptaintiff lailed to lead credible evidence to doubt the execution olEx.Al-Gift Deed, the defendant was not obligated to go into the proof of afiestation. And, when once thc document Ex.Al is legally executed before the cotnpetent authority by the respective parties, the executor of the document carluot unilaterally cancel the docurnent.

7. Thc trial Court has shitied the legal burden of proof and bases its findings on conjectures and svmpathl,. and misapplication of legal principies, rathcr,than on thc available cvidence. It is to be noted that the burden is, in f'act, on the plainrifl. rvho seeks to set aside a registered deed, to prove her allegations oltiaud, rn isrepresentation, or undue influence with clear evidence. l'he plaintiff has f'ailed to discharge this burden. The trial Court cannot seek tlte dclendant 1tl prove non-existence ol fiaud or. misrepresentation, as. such proolu,ould amount to proof of a negative fact. A positive assemion may or may not be proved by a parly rnaking such assertion, but a negative f-act cannot be proved by adducing positive evidence. In Laxmibai vs. Bhog-vlantbuva2, the Flon'ble Supreme Courl held that "a negative lact cannot be proved by adducing positive evidence,,. When the plaintiff alleged there is fiaud or rnisrepr.esentation in executing the Ex.A1, it is on the plaintilf to prove such alleged fraud or m isrepresentation; and the det'endant cannot be burdened to prove the contrary. , (2o$a)_4 scc 97 @?B-q5E L -i1;:, i: \. r:'i trq \ \' ::.-.aL. ': di... 9 as 1021-2013 NBK, ]

7.1 'l'he det-endant, by u,ay o1'l:x.Al and posscs.rion fbr over four years since the <late of execution of Ex.Al in 2005, c:rrublisl'rcd a strong prima lacie case t'ol the transaction. In that view of the nr i ter. thc impugned Judgment and I)ecree dated 11. 10.2013 passcd b1 lre rr.ial Court in O.S.No.51 ol'20 l0 is liable to be scr asidc.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting asi,1e tlie impugned Judgnrent and l)ecree dated 21.10.20 l3 passed b1, Irc- tr-ial Courl in O.S.No.51 ol20t0. No costs. Miscellancous pctitions ptr din6q. il'any, shall stand c Iosed. //TRUE COPY// SD/ .K.SRINIVASA RAO .JOINT REGISTRAR \ I ' sEcrloN oFFlcER To, ,1 The Judoe, Family Court-cum-Vll a;;s;;Aii (with r6cords ir anY)

2. One CC to Srt R Chandrashekar Reddy' Ad 3. One CC to Sri A' Gokul' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD C)opies Additional Distr r- Judge fvledak at vocate [O ] ilol VH/I'SL HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 JUDGMEN-I.+DECREE AS.No.1021 of 2013 o \-t a, * r tr o,'4 r 2 I 0cl 7t]25 .?

4.--) , a-rc) * o ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS (t- I

7.\ 10 ---L-) I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT NO: 1021 OF 2013 Between: Jeevla, S/o Dharma, Aged about 39 years, R/o Chimnapur Thanda, Chimnapur Village, Sangareddy Mandal, tvledak District. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND Smt.Jadav Nisha Bai, Wo Late Laxman Eswar Singh, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.1-3211 , Plot No.7, Chiran.jeevi Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500049. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal filed Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 21t1O12013, passed in OS.No.51 of 2010, on the file of Judge, Family Court- cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perustng the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearrng the arguments of Sri R. Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri A. Gokul, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed, setting irside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2013 passed by the t'ial Court in O.S.No 51 of 2010; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// \ \SECTION OFFIcER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-Vll Addrtional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. Two CD Cocies VH/PSL i\} HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 DECREE AS.No.1021 of 2013 ALLOWINGi THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS \ f. i.il"\',