High Court · 2025

..APPELLANTS/ Plaintiffs AND U1B:L:,'T,"i?;gii5i"|,l;tqi'{ff :!lti4:i'ff'^[!H;33""'ltili"{:il["Ji':" tVlansoorabad vittage, saroJr"nJfui rvrjnoit, Rangareddv District ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants IA NO: 10F 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying. that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support it'ti" p"tition' inJrf igr' court may be pleased to pass an iniunction order restrainirij ini i..pono"nt froir changing the physical features :i'Jil;;rl" piop"ttv, p"iuins disposal of the second appeal SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY ffi#*##,gdffi #tg;f, ffury$,",,',,i'l:'ffi 5riid ,n sub district Saroornagar anu nounoeJi, .- " ,"oo North : Neighbour,s property South : 20, wide road East; -l5,wide la ne West: H.No. 3-g_36 Counset for the Appeilant: SRl. c. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counset for the Respondent: SRt MALIPEDDI SRIN|VAS REDDY The Court delivered the following Judgment : HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY SEC ND APP o EAL No.4 86of2 024 JUD GMENT: This Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated |8.09.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B Nagar' in A'SNo'123 of 2023' I ! I I I whereunderandwhereby,theappealisdismissedconflmingthe I judgment and decree, dated 30 06'2023' passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Additional Assistant Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in O S No 1651 of 2013' 2. The appellant is plaintiff and respondent is clef'endant before the trial Court. For convenience' hereinafter the parlies are refemed to as they are arraYed in the suit' 3. The brief facts of the case' which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff hled suit for cancellation of the registered Gift deed vide document NO'3834 of 2001 dated 24.Og.2OOl and to restore water connection' It is avened that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house bearing No.3-8-35(present 3-8-61/1) consisting ofGround plus first floor' plot 2 LNA, J SA. No.486 of2024 Reddy no.s1, admeasuring 210 Sq.yards or 175.5g sq.mts, having plinth area of 1600 sq.feet in Sy.No.56/1, siruated at llighway Co lony of Mansoor-abad Village, Saroomagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Distnct under L.B.Nagar Municipality (hereinafter referred as 'schedule properly,) having purchased the same fiom NI/s. Syed Mohammed through registered sale deed bearing document No. 12821,/19g5 dared 0g.10.19g5. It is averred that Deflendanr,s father died at tender age. plaintiff and defendant,s marriage was perlonned on 01.0-5.19g3, but they were not blessed with childr.en for lg years. The, defendant and her brother forced the plaintiff to execute gift deed in her favour. Hence, plaintiff executed registered Gift deed document bearing No.3g34l2001 d,ated, 24.09.2001 in respect ol. the schedule propclty. 1'hereafter, plaintiff contracted second rnaniage on 30'09'200r rvith Sreeratha for begetting chirdren after getting corlsenr fiom the defendant by way of affidavit dated,24.09.2001 4. . It is avered that after man iage, plaintiff was blessed with two daughters and thereafter, the defendant started harassing the plaintiff that schedule property is owned by her by way of gift and the plaintiff, his wife and children have to vacate the house. That, the plaintiff is suffering with severe rnedical problems; Defendant collecting the ) LNA' J SA.No 486 of2024 rents of suit schedule PropeftY; that both Plaintiff and Defendant are residing in separate portions of thd schedule property; that the defendant cut off the water connection to the plaintifls portion for which the plaintiff and his family are facing lot of inconvenience' Hence, the suit was filed to cancel the Gift Deed and to restore the water connection

5. Defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and contended that though she did not begot children' but her Personal ailment is false Defendant also frled a complaint with Women Police Station' Saroomagar against the plaintiff and Sreelatha for the offence Under Sections 4g8-A', 4g4 and 506 of Indian Penal Code It is fufiher contended that the Plaintiff developed ilticit intimacy with one Sreelatha and begot children; that they have been harassing defendant and trying to take the possession of the property from her; that there was no coercion in obtaining Ex' A2 Gift Deed' Therefore' the suit rs not maintainable and the sanie is liable to be dismissed' 6. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties' the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- t\ 4 LNA, J SA.No.486 of2024 "(l) Lf/hether the plaitri/f execured Gi./i Setttement deed dated 24 09 200t infavluv ef jgfencrant (2.) Wether the ptainli/f is entitletl for cattcellation oJ.Gift Deed l:earing docuntent No.3B3l/2001 dated 24.09.2001? (21 To what relief? ,' untrer rhreat arurforce?

7. On behalf of the plaintifl pWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A-l to A_15 were marked. On behatf of the defendants, DWs.l and 2 wer.e examined, Exs. Bl to B t6 were marked. & After fulr-fledged triar and upon considering the orar and documental evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit, vide judgmentand decree dated 30.06.2023. 9' The triar court categorica,y observed as hereunder:_ "20. In Ex. A3 declaration, it is mentioned that tht: defendant did not get r{.ivorce from her ./irst marriage arur rLs she is not able to heget the children arrd slte has givert cotlsent to her lursbctnd b marty another wom.n. Ir is crearry menrioned rhat the deferurant is the u,i/b ofplairttff. But it is her statement thtt she did not get clivorce front her first marria.qe. l4/ltile examinirtg tlte relevance of Et.A2 aitd its impact on Ex.A2, tttis court i.s the of the view thot when the plaintilf ltimself is adnitting that deferurcutt is his v,ife, the court has to toke into cortsideratiort this statement of the ptaintiff On the other hand, the lav, is settled that gift can be etecuted in favour oJ.rhe relotit,es or. third parties. As on tlte clate of Ex.A2, plaintiff is claiming that the clelenrlant is his wife attd even during the 5 LNA' J SA.No.486 of2024 In that circumstance the contention course of this Proceedings' of the plaintiff has no relevance dnd bearing on this cdse' 2 1. Though ptaintiJf is said lo be acquittecl' even the same has nobearingdsitcannotalterthevcilidilyofEx.A2.Ex.Bl4to Ex.Bt6 stand in the name oJ'the defendant lo prove that her name is mutated in the revenue records Ex'87 to Ex'Bl2 has no relevance to this case' Ex 82 and Er'83 are again related b the matrimoniat life of them l hen both of them are claiming to be the husband and wife' Ex 82 ancl Ex'83 are of novaluetotheplaintilJ.,scase.Thoughplaintiffhasadduced Itis evidence and examined Pw2' in view of the abot'e examination antl consideration' this cotrt is of the view lhal the ptaintif..............f .failed to make out a case to be entitled for grant of rhe suit relief. " Aggrieved bY the judgment and decree dated 30'06'2023' plaintiff prefened A'S'No'123 of 2023 on the file of the Principat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' 10

11. On an appeal, the first Appeltate Court' being the final fact- finding Courl, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal' vide its judgment dated 18.09.2024, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court' and observed as hereunder:- " I h In so far as the contention of coercion is concerned' as righ\tly noted by the trial court, the evidence of PW2 is not supporting the claim of the appellant' The evidence of PW2 { 6 LNA, J SA No.186 oJ202t is lhat, he was aske(l to leave the premises, since it is a -farui ly matter. He claims that, he had heard later that the appellant was coercetl inb e.xecuting Ex.A2. But, this is only hscty"cty evidence. t h e .g a me d a te s h otys ::::;,"'' ;;;*::: :: :r,::'r: respondent cottsentetl to the appellant,s secontl nrarriage. In the cirantstances, consiclering Exs.A3 qnd A4 and the evidence in Ex.A7, it ha. ft i I e cl t, e s ta b I is h,,r: r' :: OO ;'*':: :;"::: :' :; :r':; t coercion. I2. 'flrc learnetl cotrnsel for the appellant woultl contencl that Ex.A2 is a conditiottal gift. However, a perru,al of the recituls of Ex.A2 does not reveal atty condition thctt tlrc respondent had to comply for regeiving the gift. The recital.s are categorical that fhe appellant had,giftect the properry' out of rove and affection to the responcrertt and the respondent is put irt possession of the properfv and she will enjo1, it absolutely. The only corulitiort is that the property is gifted to the responclent for lter lifetinte ancl after h.er dentise, the properfit would yest in the appellant or his fantily members. In those circumstances, it cannot be saicl that the grft is a conditional gift. It is a gift o/ life intere.st in the property, which is valid. tutcler lctw. ,, j 1 LNA, J SA.No 486 of 2024 leamed counsel for the 12. Heard Sri G' Ravi Chandrasekhar' appellant and Sri' Malipeddu Srinivas Reddy' learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record 13. Learned counsel tbr the appellant contended that the trial Coutt as well as hrst appellate Coufi has not properly considered the evidence placed on record and dismissed the suit' It is further contended that both the Courts failed to consider the fact that Gift Deed i'vas executed under the force of the defendant and that only life interest is created under the Gift Deed' therefore' as long as plaintiff is alive possession remains with tbe donor' however' it does not create absolute rights in lavour of respondent. This aspect was not properly considered by both the coufts and infact' the suit ought to have been decreed

14. A perusal of record would disclose that the suit is filed for cancellation of the Gift Deed and the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court held that Gift Deed is unconditional and it cannot be cancelled. The First Appellate Courl held that under gift deed only life interest was created and after death of the defendant' the property would revert back to the appellant or his family members' therefore' there are no grounds to grant reliefas sought by the appellant' I I l 8 '0.*. r* jili;l 15. .Further, in Gurdev Kaur u Kakir, theApex Court held that the High Oouft sitting in Second Appeal canaot examine the evidence once again as a tlrird trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and j1 s2n be exercised only rvhere a substantial question of Iaw is raised and falls for consideration. 16. Having considered the entrre rnaterial available on record and the findings recorded by the Ii rst Appellate Couft, this Courl finds no ground or. r.eason warranting in terference with the said findings, under Section i00 C.p.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nafure and no question of law, rnuch less a substantial question of larv arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal. 17. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs I. , Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed ,.r,,?7i[5AY',IXA //TRUE COPY// To SECTI OFFICER

1. The Principal District Judge, Rangareddy district at L B Nagar 2 The I Additionar senior civir Judge cum chief Metroporitan Magistrate cum lAdditional Assistant sessions Judge, Rangareddy district at L.B.Nagar.

3. One CC to SRl. G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate topucl 4. One CC to SRl. MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY' Advocate IoPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies h,//kuuPsL :.J HIGH COURT DATED:10tO3t20ZS JUDGMENT SECOND AppEAL No.4B6 or 2024 / !il^, SIA r.,: f- 1B SEP 2025 :i -.r. - t ,,: - lt:- )-./;r DISMISSING THE SECOND A?PEAL v 1 { / /4 /a, ,/'