M. SHOBHA Vs. M. DINESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which has dismissed her suit for declaration that the gift deed dated 13.07.2007 is illegal, null and void and consequently, for a decree of partition by metes and bounds by giving her 1/8th share in the schedule properties.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff is her grand father Lingaiah was not keeping good health for quite a long time prior to his death and he was not in a position to move about. After the death of said Lingaiah, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have colluded together and got concocted document styled as 'Gift Deed' dated 13.07.2007 pertaining to the suit schedule properties. On 13.07.2007, the said K. Lingaiah was not in a position to take any decision and was not in a position to understand anything as he was bedridden and was virtually into death bed. By taking undue advantage of his helpless situation, the defendants have concocted the document styled as 'Gift Deed', even though Late K. Lingaiah had no intention of depriving the plaintiff from succeeding to the suit schedule properties. The said alleged gift deed is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The said gift deed was not at all executed by Late K. Lingaiah. The witnesses who alleged to have signed the document were also not known to the said K. Lingaiah. Even though the said Lingaiah used to put his signature, his LTMs are found in the said alleged gift deed and it shows that the LTMs were obtained by the Sub -Registrar in the House of the said Lingaiah at door No. 4504/6C, Thibbadevi Temple Road, Mysore. The said address shown in the document is the address of the eldest son of said Lingaiah and by mis -using the position as eldest son, the 3rd defendant got concocted the document in collusion with the other defendants. It has not been stated in the gift deed as to why the plaintiff has been deprived of the rights to the property and nothing has been alleged about the plaintiff in the said gift deed. The plaint schedule properties are all Joint Family Properties and the plaintiff has acquired right by birth over the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the said Lingaiah had no competency to execute the gift deed. The so -called gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff and will not take away the share of the plaintiff. The said alleged gift deed has been registered after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and hence, no value could be attached to the said document and no right could be claimed on the basis of the alleged gift deed set up by the defendants. The said document does not come in the way of the plaintiff enforcing her right over the schedule properties.