CHANDRAKANT HARMALKAR Vs. SUMATI SAGUN HARMALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the original defendants against whom the respondents-plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The declaration sought was that the Gift Deed dated 27th February 1976 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was null and void and the injunction sought was for restraining the defendants from making any construction upon the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit partly but the first Appellate Court decreed it fully. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are in brief that according to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 Sumati was married to deceased defendant No. 1 Sagun and that plaintiff No. 2 Bhikaji and plaintiff No. 4 Krishnabai are the son and daughter respectively of the said Sagun. It was further averred in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by plaintiff No. 2 Bhikaji in the name of his father defendant No. 1 Sagun. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 Sumati being the wife of Sagun, had her half share in the suit property. It was alleged that despite this position, defendant No. 1 Sagun made a gift of the entire suit property in favour of defendant No. 2 and 3 by a registered deed dated 27th February, 1976. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 had no authority to make a gift of the entire suit property. They, therefore, filed a suit for declaration that the Gift Deed dated 27th February 1976 was null and void. They further prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction in the suit property.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit under a common written statement wherein it was pointed out that they have been having together for the last 40 years and that defendant No. 3 Kamlabai is the wife of defendant No. 1 Sagun and defendant No. 2 Chandrakant is their son. The defendants deny the averment that the suit property was purchased by plaintiff No. 2 Bhikaji in the name of defendant No. 1 Sagun. The defendants did not admit the factum of marriage between the plaintiff No. 1 Sumati and defendant No. 1 Sagun and called upon the plaintiffs to prove the same. The defendants further denied that defendant No. 1 Sagun had no right or authority to make a gift of the suit property and contended that the Gift Deed made by him is completely legal.