GEETA BAI Vs. RAMAVATAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are being heard together as similar facts and issues are involved except the parties to the suit. The the appeals are by the defendant.

(2.) This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 2/9/2013 by the VI Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 13-A of 2012. The respondent Ramavatar Agrawal filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Smt. Geeta Bai. The pleadings, as made by the plaintiff are that defendant Geeta Bai is real maternal aunt (Sagi Mousi). Initially the financial position of the plaintiff was not good when he shifted from Katni to Bilaspur in 1975, therefore, out of love and affection, the defendant gifted him a part of land bearing Kh. No. 450/2 admeasuring 0.44 acres situated at village Ameri and the possession thereof was handed over to him after the gift. Later on, the name of plaintiff got mutated in the records as the owner and possessor and consequently, after obtaining the property by gift, Ramavatar Agrawal got his name mutated in revenue records as possessor of the land and at the time of mutation, the gifted property was allotted Kh. No. 450/3 admeasuring 0.44 acres equivalent to 0.178 hectares. It is further pleaded that after the said gift, the land was mortgaged with State Bank of India to secure a loan availed by one Sudhir Bajpai, Proprietor of Sudhir Chemicals. The plaintiff wanted to get the land demarcated, as such, he applied for revenue documents like B-1, Khasra Panchshala and copy of map and when he contacted to revenue Patwari on 20/6/2002, for the first time, he came to know that the land was recorded in the name of donor Smt. Geeta. It was revealed that on 30/1/1992, a cancellation deed was executed whereby the initial gift dtd. 15/10/1982 was cancelled. The plaintiff further pleaded that unilateral cancellation of registered gift deed could not have been effected without being informed to the plaintiff and it is a nullity and as a result she would not get any title over the property by such mutation of her name. Therefore, prayer was made that the plaintiff be declared as owner of the land and his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property shall not be disturbed and accordingly, permanent injunction was sought.

(3.) The suit was filed by plaintiff Shri Nivas Agrawal against one Premlata Bai for declaration and permanent injunction. Shri Nivas Agrawal was represented through Power of Attorney Holder Ramavtar Agrawal. Subsequently, at the appellate stage, Shri Nivas Agrawal died and his legal representatives were brought on record. It was pleaded by plaintiff Shri Nivas Agrawal that defendant Smt. Prem Lata Bai is her maternal aunt (Sagi Mausi) and since the plaintiff was not financially sound, out of love and affection a part of land bearing Kh. No. 450/1 admeasuring 0.44 acres situated at village Ameri P.H. No. 95 was gifted to Shrinivas Agrawal. After obtaining the land by gift, Shrinivas Agrawal got his name mutated in revenue records as possessor of the land and at the time of mutation, the gifted property was allotted Kh. No. 450/6 admeasuring 0.44 acres equivalent to 0.178 hectares. Thereafter, the gifted land was mortgaged to secure a loan availed by Sudhir Bajaj, Proprietor of Bajaj Chemicals with the State Bank of India. When the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff wanted to get the name mutated in revenue records in the year 2002, first time, he came to know that the said land was recorded in the name of Smt. Prem Lata Bai and on further enquiry, it revealed that the gift deed dtd. 15/10/1982 was cancelled by an unilateral cancellation deed dtd. 30/1/1992. The plaintiff pleaded that the said cancellation of registered gift deed being unilateral is a nullity and does not give any right to the defendant to divest him out of ownership. It was further stated that because of the act of the defendant, it casts cloud on the title of the plaintiff, as such, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property was claimed. The trial Court decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.