GAMPA SRINIVAS Vs. B. SUKESHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a preliminary decree for partition and a decree of cancellation of a Gift Settlement deed and two registered Sale deeds, the defendants 6 to 9 have come up with the above regular appeal.

(2.) Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. G. Purushotham Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr. Zaheeruddin, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6.

(3.) The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 527 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and separate possession of her '/3rd share in the suit schedule property and also seeking a declaration that a Gift Settlement deed dated 30-04-2005 and the registered sale deeds dated 2701-2007 registered as Document Nos.322 and 323/2007 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff was that she was the daughter of the 2nd respondent herein (1st defendant in the suit), who is now no more and one G. Seetharamaiah; that the respondents 3 to 6 herein (who were defendants 2 to 5) were the legal heirs of the deceased brother of the plaintiff by name G. Keshava Rao; that the appellants herein (who were defendants 6 to 9) were third party purchasers; that the plaintiff's father G. Seetharamaiah was an employee of the State Bank of India, who died on 27-02-1972, leaving behind him surviving his wife, who was the 1st defendant and a daughter (plaintiff) and a son by name G. Keshava Rao; that the son G. Keshava Rao died on 27-03-2007 leaving behind him surviving his mother, who was the 1st defendant, his wife, who was the 2nd defendant and his daughters and son, who were defendants 3 to 5; that the father late G. Seetharamaiah was allotted the suit schedule property by the State Bank of India Staff Housing Cooperative Society in the year 1969-70; that the said property was of an extent of about 4062 square yards; that the advance for the allotment of the house was paid by the father Sri G. Seetharamaiah and he also paid monthly instalments till his death; that after his demise in the year 1972, the house was leased out to tenants from 1973 onwards on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500.00; that subsequently the rents were enhanced from time to time and the instalments to the Cooperative Housing Society were paid out of the rental income; that late G. Seetharamaiah nominated his wife (1st defendant), as required by the byelaws of the Cooperative Society; that therefore, the Society transferred the property in the name of the 1st defendant under a registered Transfer Deed bearing Document No.360/1986; that since the suit schedule house was acquired by three persons namely G. Seetharamaiah, his legal heirs namely his wife (1st defendant), his daughter namely the plaintiff and G. Keshava Rao (his son) succeeded to the property in equal shares; that however the son G. Keshava Rao got a Gift deed executed by the mother in his favour on 30-04-2005 as Document No.1425/2005; that the 1st defendant has been suffering from chronic hyper tension, diabetics and other diseases and was actually in depression due to prolonged use of medicines; that taking undue advantage of the circumstances, the son G. Keshava Rao used to take her to the Bank for withdrawing the pension and he got executed the Gift Settlement deed by misrepresenting and misleading her; that the plaintiff was not aware of these developments and came to know about the Gift Settlement only after G. Keshava Rao sold the property under two registered Sale Deeds dated 22-01-2007, in favour of defendants 6 to 9; that the 1st defendant has no right to deal with the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property; that the Gift Settlement deed dated 30-04-2005 does not bind the share of the plaintiff in the suit property; that the defendants 2 to 5 fraudulently and by misrepresenting, alienated the property in favour of defendants 6 to 9; that G. Keshava Rao had only share in the suit schedule property and did not have any right to alienate more than his share; that therefore, the sale deeds executed by G. Keshava Rao and his legal heirs are not binding upon the plaintiff; that as a matter of fact, G. Keshava Rao got appointment in the State Bank of India on compassionate grounds and thus he availed of the benefits, but attempted to deprive the plaintiff, of her right; that upon coming to know of the alienation made by G. Keshava Rao, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 28-02-2007 to G. Keshava Rao and defendants 6 to 9; that G. Keshava Rao issued a reply notice dated 13-03-2007; that defendants 6 to 9 also issued a reply notice dated 14-03-2007; that the plaintiff issued a rejoinder dated 27-03-2007; that G. Keshava Rao died on 2703-2007, after which the plaintiff issued another notice dated 18-04-2007 to defendants 2 to 5; and that therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ^rd share in the suit schedule property and also a decree for declaration that the Gift Settlement deed as well as registered sale deeds are null and void.