SANGAMESHGOUDA MUDIGOUDRA Vs. BASAVANNEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner approached this Court to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dtd. 28/7/2022 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur in M.A.No.4/2020 vide Annexure-F as null and void and issue any other writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.136/2018 for the relief of cancellation of both the registered gift deeds dtd. 1/9/1993 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of the suit land and another dtd. 23/3/2005 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the very suit land. The suit land is described in the schedule as land bearing Sy.No.23A/11A/1 measuring 14 gunta situated at Hiremaganur village in Ranebennur taluk.

(3.) It is contended in the suit that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff but the name of Karabasappa was entered nominally as joint owner in the RTC of the suit land. Defendant No.4 was much acquainted with the plaintiff and he intended to construct marriage hall at Hiremaganur village in the name of father of defendant No.4. Accordingly, defendant No.4 had requested the plaintiff to gift the suit land. In this regard, deliberations took place between the plaintiff and defendant No.4 and they have arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has to gift his suit land in the memory of his wife Smt.Shanthamma through registered gift deed to defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 on his cost has to convert the suit land to non-agricultural purpose and to construct the marriage hall in the name of father of plaintiff Basappa Mudigoudar and in the memory of Shanthamma, the wife of plaintiff. It was also an understanding of the parties that the name of Shanthamma, wife of plaintiff has to be carved in the stone slab and that the stone slab was to be fixed in the conspicuous place of the front wall of marriage hall. Marriage hall should be kept for public use and there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.4 that defendant No.4 should not alienate the suit land to others in any manner and should not use it for any other purpose. Imposing such conditions, stipulations and terms, the plaintiff had gifted the suit land in favour of defendant No.4 on 1/9/1993. Defendant No.4 though accepted the said gift, has failed to comply the terms and conditions of the gift. He neither constructed a marriage hall nor kept or retained the suit land as it was. Instead defendant No.4 gifted the suit land to defendant No.3 by executing the registered gift deed on 22/3/2005 for the play ground of school and hence the said gift deed is illegal and defendants No.1 to 3 acquire no title over the suit land since there is violation of conditions of the gift deed dtd. 1/9/1993.