RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. SHIVANANJE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the plaintiff in the Trial Court. He filed the suit in original Suit No. 322 of 1975 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff was that four items of properties were gifted to him under a registered gift deed dated 25-3-1971. The defendant admitted execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff but resisted the suit on the ground that only two items of properties had been gifted and not four items. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Both the parties led evidence by examining witnesses and producing documents. On appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit partly holding that plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule items 1 and 2 and in respect of suit schedule items 3 and 4 dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 30-10-1980. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in R. A. No. 83 of 1980 against the dismissal of the suit partly, was dismissed by the first Appellate Court by its judgment dated 27-3-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

(3.) THE Trial Court elaborately considered the contents of the gift deed, Ex. D. 4 and found that there were certain insertions in different ink. On a meticulous scrutiny of Ex. D. 4 the Trial Court found that the deed was complete in 8th line in the second page and thereafter 6 to 7 lines are written. The Trial Court found that on a reading of 8th line in second page, the gift deed ended with gifting only suit items 1 and 2. It was also found that the first 8 lines in page are little bigger and the letters in the latter portion are small. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court held that suit schedule items 3 and 4 have been included subsequently by playing the fraud on the first defendant who executed the gift deed, Ex. P. 1. To arrive at such a conclusion, the Trial Court has considered the evidence of D. W. 1 who has categorically stated that he executed the gift deed only in respect of suit items 1 and 2 out of love and affection and retained the other two items for himself. It was observed that the scribe who wrote Ex. D. 4 has not made any shara. When the Sub-Registrar asked him to write shara, the scribe told that there was no place. But the Trial Court found that the place is vacant below. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court held that some mischief has been played while writing the gift deed.