B C RAVINDRA Vs. DEVIRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff are in appeal, aggrieved by the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession being decreed. The main grievance of the appellants-defendants in this appeal is that, without seeking the relief of cancellation of the gift deeds in question, the Trial Court could not have decreed the suit.

(2.) The facts which fall within the narrow compass are that, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and possession in respect of the suit properties which are described as 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in S.No. 1148. 25 guntas of land in S.No. 1223 and 0.30 guntas of land in S.No. 54, all situated in Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, and it was the plaintiff's case that she became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered gift deed executed in her favour by her parents on 27.9.1963 Being an old lady, she allowed her sons to cultivate the lands and later executed a registered will in favour of her five sons on 30.10.1996. The plaintiff was residing in the house of her second son D. Chikkadevegowda and his two sons (defendants-1 and 2 in the present suit).

(3.) The said two sons of her second son, took the plaintiff to the office of the Sub-Registrar in the guise of arranging for old-age pension to her in a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - and on that pretext, the said defendants obtained her thumb impressions on certain documents, which she later came to know as the gift deeds. Contending that the gift deeds, upon which the defendants stake their claim for ownership, were not executed by her with her free will and consent and the said documents were created by the defendants by playing fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation and that the said gift deeds are, therefore, not valid, the plaintiff sought for declaration and possession on the footing that she continued to be in possession of the property and being interfered with by the defendants, if he had to approached the Trial Court for relief.