G PADMANABHAM Vs. N V C SINGARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grandhi Padmanabham, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. 6/73 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram is the appellant. The suit was laid, (1) for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule house and the registered sale deed Ex. A-20 Dated 22-12-70 executed by the second defendant Grandhi Venkata Seshayya Chetty, who is none else than his own father, in favour of the first defendant Venkata China Singarayya conveying the said house for a consideration of Rs. 11,000.00is a sham transaction not valid and binding; (2) for recovery of possession after vacating the first defendant; and (3) for damages at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month for use and occupation of the house by the first defendant from 22-12-70 till physical possession is handed over to him.

(2.) The Plaintiff Grandhi Padmanabham and D-3 Venkata Ramana Murthy are the sons of D-2 Venkata Seshayya Chetty and they were members of Joint Hindu Family till 28-12-1958 when they got divided the joint family properties into three shares under a registered partition deed Ex. A-l dated 28-12-58 under which the plaint schedule house and some other properties fell to the share of the father (D-2). On 15-9-66, the father executed a registered gift deed Ex. A-2 in favour of his two sons the plaintiff padmanabham and D-3 Venkataramana Murthy the plaint schedule house and some other properties were given to the gain tiff, and the second defendant Seshayya letty was given the rest of the properties. The first defendant Singarayya was a tenant in the plaint schedule house. On the very same day i.e., 15-9-66 when the father gifted the properties to the plaintiff Padmanabham and D-3 Venkataramana Murthy under Ex. A-2, the plaintiff executed an agreement Ex. B-1 in favour of his father (D-2) agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 200.00 every month during his life time for his maintenance and in case of failure to pay the maintenance the father "would be at liberty to cancel or revoke the gift deed". Alleging that his sons the plaintiff Padmanabham and D-1 Singarayya (Sic.) coerced him into executing the gift deed Ex. A-2 when he was grief-striken and in a state of shock due to the death of his wife, and that they did not fulfil the promises made by them, the father (D-6) revoked the gift deed by a registered deed of revocation dated 8-5-67, the certified extract of which is Ex. A-17 Subsequently the plaint schedule house was sold by the father (D-2) to the first defendant Singarayya for a consideration of Rs. 11,000.00 on 22-12-70 under a registered sale deed, the certified copy of which is Ex. A-20.

(3.) It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff accepted the gift and the donor divested himself of the properties covered by the gift deed and, therefore, the deed has become irrevocable. The revocation of such an irrevocable gift deed by the deed of revocation Ex A-17 dated 8-5-1957 is invalid and inoperative. The sale of the house in favour of the first defendant Singarayya is a sham, collusive and fraudulent transaction. It was also averred that the plaintiff Padmanabham filed another suit O.S. 8/73 in the very same court against his further and others regarding some other property gifted to him under the very same gift deed Ex. A-2. The validity and binding nature of the said gift deed and also the revocation deed Ex. A-17 fell for consideration in O.S. 8/73 and the court by its judgment dated 27-12-77 (the certified copy of which is Ex. A-19) held that the gift deed is true, valid and acted upon and that the revocation deed is invalid and not binding. That judgment therefore constitutes res judicata.