The High Court · 2025

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased.vacate the interim order passed in ASMP No 732 of 2O',14 in AS No 174 of 2014 daled 09-12-2014' Counsel for the Appellants : SRI' IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V'R' AVULA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No. 174 OF 2OL4 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble S.nl. Juslice Ttrunola DeDi boda) This is an appeal filed by the appellants - defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 77.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.775 of 2010 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short "the trial Court").

2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sakc of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintilfs before the trial Court is that the defendant No. I had two sons. The eldest son by name N.C-Parthban is the defendant No.2 and younger son is by name late Nerlakotta Chinnappa Magesh. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Chinnappa Magesh and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Chinnappa Magesh. It is their case that the defendants executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.4548 of 2009 dated 02. l2.2OO9 in favour of Chinnappa Magesh i.e. the husband of plaintilf No. 1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and that it is an unconditional gift deed. The possession was also handedover - I 2 AKS,,' & ETD,] ,1S No. t 7.? of 2014 a .registered to Chinnappa Magesh and the tenants in the said property paid rents to the Donee i.e. Chinnappa Magesh till his death. While so, said Chinnappa Magesh died on 28.O3.2O1O due to AIDS and the praintiffs are thc onlv surviving regal heirs of Magesh. Thereafter, the defendants started ill-treating the praintiffs and the_v executed revocation of gift settlement deed bearing clocument No. l90B of 2010 dated 24.O4.2O1O. During the life time of Magesh, the defendants and Magesh sold away a portion of the property abutting the suit property to third parties in August, 2009 prior to thr. execution of gift deed in favour of Magesh. It is their case that as Magesh suffered from AIDS for a period of more than 1O years they incurred heavy debts for medication and also that he was not doing business properly and thus, incurred loss, due to which they incurred debts. It is their case that since the gift deed was executed out of love and affection and there was also immediate acceptance of the same, the defendants have no right to revoke the said gift deed by unilateral cancellation, thus, they sought for cancellation of the said revocation deed uncler document No. l9O8 of 2O I0.

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments in the petition but they have admitted the execution of gift deed dated 02. 12.2OOg. It is their case rhat they executed rhe \ .--_--....: l AKS,.] & EID,J AS No.174 o12014 gift deed to secure the future life of Magesh and that since he died, the Gift Deed need not be continued and thereby they cancelled the gift deed and that they sold away the property abutting the suit schedule property, out of which the sale consideration of Rs.20 Lakhs was taken by Magesh towards his share and thus, the contention of plaintilfs that they incurred debts for his treatment is denied. They lurther contended that possession was not delivered though they executed the gift deed and thus, they have revoked the gift deed after the death of Magesh and that the plaintiffs have no right to seek ior its cancellation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial 1 Whether the plaintifl is entitled to declare the execution of the registered rcvocation of gift settlement deed dated 24.O4.2O1O executed by the defendants to revoke the registered gift settlement deed dated O2.12.2O1O executed by the defendants as null and void? 2 ?) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? To what relieP" I I I 1 AKS,I & ETD,,] AS lJo.174 of 2014

6. At the time ol trial, the plaintiffs got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A9. The defendants got examined DWs \ \ I and 2, but no ciocuments were marked.

7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit canceiling the revocation deed by declaring it as null and void and also has granted consequential perpetual injunction. Agerieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filcd by the defendants.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri Ramarao Immaneni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the respondents. g. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the trial Court failed to visualize the .case in a proper perspective and that their sole inten tion of executing the gift deed was to support the life of Magesh. The appellants counsel has argued that the appellants have taken full care of the deceased by providing proper medication and treatment and that he lived for more than 15 years after getting affected with HIV and that it is only when plainti![ No. I hrls taken him along with her after a compromise, he \ died within two months as the plaintiff No. 1 failed to take proper care. He further argued that the appellants being the mother and ./ - 5 AKS,J & ETD,I AS No.174 of 2014 brother of the deceased have spent huge amounts for his treatment and that there was a compromise arrived between the parties prior to filing of the suit and after the death of Magesh an amount of Rs.2O Lakhs was paid to plaintiff No. i towards permanent settlement of her claim and to secure for her future living. He further argued that the Gift Deed was revoked after the death of Magesh and not during his life time and that apart from the rental income, the money derived from selling the plot abutting the suit schedule property was given to the plaintiffs for their sustenance. He further argued that due to the illness of Magesh, the family business incurred a loss to a tune of Rs.2 Crores and that they have discharged the said liability as plaintiff No.1 refused to share any of such iiability. He further argued that Magesh has borrowed money from his sister also, which is not paid. He further argued that though it is mentioned in the gift deed that the possession is handedover, it never handedover and it was remained with the appellants and thus, they have revoked the gift deed and that the appellants have no right to seek its cancellation.

10. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintiffs are the bereaved family members of Magesh and that they are ill-treated by the defendants and that 6 AKS,] & EID,I AS No.174 of 2014 followingthedeathofMagesh,thedefendantshaveunilaterally revoked the gift deed and have caused huge loss to the plaintiffs' .i Hefurtherarguedthattheplaintiffsareleftwithnoothermeans to.eke out their livelihood and that unilateral cancellation is bad in law and thus, the trial Court has rightly declared the said revocation deed as null and void, he therefore, prayed to uphold the judgment and decree of the trial Court' 1 1. Based on thc above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 Whether the revocation deed dated 24.04.2O1O is a void document? If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitlecl to get it declared as null and void? Whr:ther the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable under law and in the facts?

3. To q,hat relieP

12. POINT NO.1 a) The relationship between the parties is admitted' The execution of gilt deed under Ex.Al is also admitted but the only contention ol the defendants is that possession was not handedover. b) A perusal of Ex.Al/gift deed discloses that the settlers have already delivered the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit \/ 7 AKS,] & TTD,., AS No.174 of 2014 Y schedule property to settlee. Thus, the contention of defendants in this regard is proved to be false. Now it has to been whether its revocation can be done unilaterally. c) It is pertinent to refer to Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, with regard to the revocation of gift deed. The said provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.- The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or lailure ol consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice." d) Thus, it is clear from the said provision that a gift deed cannot be revoked unilaterally. Since,.it is already elicited from the recitals of Ex.A 1 that the gift deed was executed by the dcfendants in favour of Magesh and possession was also handed over to him, the unilateral cancellation of the said gift deed by executing another document is void in the eye of law. e) A perusal of Ex.A2 / rcvocation deed reveals that it is revoked for the reason that after the execution of said gift settlement deed a lot of gap and misunderstandings took place I AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.174 of 2014 between the settlers and settlee and that the settlee has completely neglected the settler, as such, the settler has decided I to cancel and revoke the said gift settlement deed. The said reason does not entitle the defendants to revoke the gift deed. Admittedly, it u,as revoked within a month after the death of Magesh. It is borne out by record that Magesh died on 2A.O3.2OlO, while the revocation deed was executed on

24.O4.2O1O. Therefore, the execution of revocation deed is bad in the eye of law and is not sustainable, hence, it is declared to be null and void. The ptaintifls sought for cancellation of the said revocation deed / Ex.A2. Section 31 of the Specifrc Relief Act, 1963 is referred to in this context and the same is extracted hereunder: '31. When cancellation may be ordcred.-(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehensior-t thar such instrument, if left outstanding may causc him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has bcen registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 {16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its deoree to the officer in uhose oflice the instrument has been so registered; and such ofhcer shall note on thc copy of the instrument contained in his books t}le lact of its cancellation." f) Since the document is void as against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for its cancellation. Point No.l is answered accord ingly. -- / 9 AK5,J & EID,J AS No-174 of 2014

13. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No. I, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. ),4. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 17. 12.2013 passed in O.S.No.775 of 2010 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga. Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REG SECTION OFFICER To, Records)

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy D rict at L.B.Nagar. (With I ijl""cCio Sri Rama Rao lmmaneni, 49yg!31" (oPUc) 5, 6;; cc i; 5;iV.n.Rvuta' Advocate (oPUC) 4. Two CD CoPies Ks/KRw I I I HE1 J l $6 luN ?$ -Z C)x J. t SPAI x HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 JUDGMENT A.S.No.174 of 2014 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS. ,ogSol G t-r' HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO. 174 OF 2014 Between: 1. Vatsala, W/o. Late N.R. Chinnappan Occ House hotd R/o. H.No. 1L1€6/7/3/F 2 N.C. Parthban, S/o. N.R. Chinnappan Occ Business Rl/o. H.No. 11-1-66/7l3lF Chilakalguda, Near Sri Devi Theater Seethaphalmandi Secunderabad Chilakalguda Near Sri Devi Theater Seethapahlmandi Secunderabad ...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS AND 1 ry M. Suvarna, W/o. Late N.V.Magesh Occ House wife Rl/o. H.No. 12-12-54 2. N.M. Bhavana, D/o. Late N.C. tVagesh Occ Student Rl/o. H.No. 12:12-54 Ravindranagar Sitafalmandi Hyderabad Ravindranagar Sitafalmandi Hyderabad Both are represented by their GPA Holder Mr. D. Bharathkumar Appear rired under Sec. e6 or cpc, ugs,l"u"iffi3:3.tJ["tii:#1tJ5l": made in O.S.No.775 of 2O1O Dated 17.12.2013 on the file of the court of lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. ORDER:This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rama Rao lmmaneni, for the Appellants and of Sri V.R.Avula, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.775 of 20'10 dated 17.12.2013 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar be and hereby is upheld.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL ,rQ!ruyseqsrBAR- t u sEcroN oFFrcER

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT AKS,J & ETD,.J DATED:1110412025 DECREE A.S.No.174 of 2014 DTSMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS. ,^*{^ &* h