The appeal challenged a trial court decree declaring a gift deed executed by a GPA holder as nonest in law. The High Court upheld the decree, finding the GPA did not authorize gifting the property and the suit was within limitation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal suit dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT NO: 1005 OF 2010
Appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 1 of C.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 30-10-2010 passed in O.S.No. 235 ot 2003 on the file of Vl Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust, Regn. No. 143197 Sanathnagar, R.R. District, Rep. by President Shyam Sunder Boorgula, S/o Late Muthyalu, 48 yrs, Advocate No 7-'l-210, Ameerpet, Hyderabad
...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT 2
AND
.. RESPONDENT /PLAINTIFF
...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT 1
ASMP. NO: 1067 oF 2016
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased this Hon'ble Court may be pleased fix an early date of hearing of the appeal A.S No. 1005 of 2010 preferably within two weeks and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit andproper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B. MAHENDER REDOY
Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : Sri M. PAPA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None appeared
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
I1t )NOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREI SUf)HA
APPEAL SUIT No.105 of 2010
UDGI{I NT
I'hi; appeal is filed by defendant No.ll ,rgpgieved by the jurlp ment and decree, dated 30.10.201(), cassed in O.S.\1o.2:,;5 of 2003 on the file of the !'I-Adlitional Senior Civii Jud;;e (FTC), Medchal, Ranga Reddy Dis hict
Apl,etlant lrerein is defendant No.2; rer;pon,]ent No.1 herein is rl;rintiff and respondent No. 2 herein is rlefendant No..l in tl e suit. The parties will be referred tc as arrayed before th,, h ial Court.
The backdrop of the case leading to filing of this appealisrsunder
Ihc plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of gift deed dated Oll.tl 1.1999 executed by the 1't defendant n iavour of the 2,d ,-1,:':endant is nonest in law and also s,tu1;ht for a directiorr : r rlefendants 1 and 2 to deliver vacant possession of the suit ;c.redule property to the plaintiff
\ f
TSSJ A.S.No.1005 of 2010
2
Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.307 (Part) situated at Gajula Ramaram village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As the plaintiff was away from the village and not able to look after the suit schedule property, he executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the 1.t defendant vide document No.1318/91 dated 24.07.7991 authorising him to sell, lease, transfer by way of exchange or mortgage whole or any part of the said property and to receive consideration thereof on behalf of the plaintiff. After execution of the said power of attorney, the 1"t defendant was looking after the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has been enjoying the usufruct earned on the said property till October 1998 and thereafter the 1't defendant did not account for the income earned from the property in spite of repeated requests. After waiting for more than two years, the plaintiff had issued a notice dated
rcsl A S.N r.1005 of 2010
2
22.08.2Ct0' to the 1.t defendant informing him about
cancella.t,rn of said power of attorney anri that the 1"t defendaLr' received the same, but failed to give any reply. Subseqtre, rt)y, the plaintiff proceeded to cancel t:he power of attornel' I y execution of a registered cancell,rtLon deed on
22.12.2001 and in the meanwhile, the plaintiff had got publicatio r issued in local newspaper inform ng the public about, isr; rance of notice of cancellation upon the 1"t defendant In response to the said publicatior., the 1"t defendan: sr:nt a replv dated 13.11.2001 clairning that the propert) ras been settled long back and translerred in favour of thircl party's name and as such cancellation of power o[ : tt,)rney is of no consequence. It is :,u rth:r stated that tlre [,t defc,ndant has in fact transferred the property in favour o[ llrt: 2"d defendant by executing a re1;ir;tered deed of gift orr 120-1 .7999 After realizing that the 1" dt:fendant played f r;r rc:, the plaintiff also filed a private cc'mplaint against trir r before the Additional |udicial l\4;Lgisrtrate of
rrssl A.S.No.1005 of 2010
4
Frist Class, Rangareddy Disffict, for the,offences punishable under Sections 406, 407 and 420 of I.P.C. and it is pending adjudication. It is further stated that the transfer in pursuance of registered deed of gift dated 02.01,.1999 executed in favour of the 2"d defendant by the 1* defendant is invalid and nonest in law as the 1"t defendant did not have any authority to execute the same and as such the 2"d ln defendant is precluded from claiming any rights pursuance of the said gift deed.
In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it is contended that the 2"d defendant was shown as being represented by its President late K.Shankar Yadav,who died on 08.09.1999, and as such the suit againstthe 2nd defendant as being represented by a dead Personis nonest and unsustainable. The suit ProPerty absolutelybelongs to was late K.Shankar Yadav under whom the plaintiff working as a servant. Late Shankar Yadav had acquiredan extent of Ac.2.00 of land forming part of Sy.No.307 towhich
rcS' 4.S.No.1005 of 2010
A
the sutr ,[i'rision No.307/e was assigned t), th,, revenue authoritir s and it was nominally put 1n the name of Smt.Venlal.amma wife of late Muthyalu. Similarly, late K.Shank,ar: Yadav had acquired another exlenr: of land admeas;u.. irLg Ac.2.00 forming part of Sy. No.307 and nomina.ll" put in the name of Vasudev Goud, There#ter, late K.[]htrkar Yadav got executed irrevocrLbte registered G.P.,{s. I y plaintiff, Venkatamma and Vast dev Goud, in respect c,t the said properties in favour of thr: .:st rlefendant in whorr. hr: had full trust and confidence. Iir fact, the suit schedule pl'operty was acquired by late K.Shrtnkar Yadav during hi ; life time in the name of plaintiff anl imrnediately got exe,:rr ted irrevocable GPA by the plaintit:f in favour of defendaLrL lJo.1. In respect of all these three p1rlp6r1ties, late K.ShanlceL Yadav got registered irrevocable CipAs in favour of defencl rnt No.1 with instructions that. all tre.se aforesaid propert.er should be gifted in favour of the 2',d clefendant trust f<>r' the purpose of construction o educational
TsSJ A.S.No.1005 of 2010
6
institutions for the public benefit. As per the instructions of late K.Shankar Yadav, three registered gift deedswere
executed in favour of the 2"d defendant inrespect ofthe Iands held by plaintiff,Venkatamma andVasudevGoud through the 1* defendant as a GPA holder.Thus, the2nd defendant by virtue of registered giftdeed dated02.01.1999 has become the absolute andexclusive owner and possessor of total extent of Ac.7.00 andthe saidland also got mutated in the name of the 2"d defendantin the revenuerecords. Thus, the suit propertywas kept nominallyin the name of plaintiff who was immediately required toexecute registered irrevocable GPAin favourof the 1't defendantas was done in the case of saidVenkatammaand Vasudev
Goud. The 2"d defendanthas been in continuouspossession and enjoyment of the same inits own right as absolute owner by paying land revenue.The plaintiffwas neverin the custody of any title deeds orrecordsrelatingto the suit property nor was he ever in possession ofthe suit ProPerty
rssl A.ll.Nc.1005 of 2010
7
or any p; rt thereof. In fact, the plaintiff di<[ rot pay any consideraion for the suit lands to any()ne at ,1n]' point of time. J,t is only taking advantage of rleath cf tl.Shankar
Yadav, th: plaintiff has entertained an evil ide a to lay a false clain'r to t re suit property. The question of th,: Lst tlefendant renderin; accounts to the plaintiff for the inconre earned from the ;uit property does not arise. Since no in,:ome was earned, t hr: plaintiff hacl nothing to do with the suit property. It is further contended that the sui: property was already t ansferred bv wav of a valid gift cecd by the 1* defendrur " in favour of the 2"a defendant, r.ro ,tseful purpose could t,e ;erved by cancelling the GPA lry thr, I,laintiff. The gift dee,d is perfectly legal, valid and binding rrr the plaintiff and there is; no clog on the alleged ownership of the plaintiff in resp,3<; c,f the suit schedule property since he l.ras no title over ttre same. Hr:nce, it is requested to disrniss the suit with er.er rJrlary costs.
PSSI A.S.No.1@5 of 2010
8
Defendant No.2 also filed a writtenstatementon
similar lines with that of written statement of defmdant
No.1, in which it is contended thatthe plaintiffexecuted a registered irrevocable GPA in favourof the 1"t defendant on 24.07.1991, giving authorisationto the 1st defendant to do all transactions and as such the 1'tdefendant executed a registered gift deed on02.01.1999 infavour of the 2"d defendant. The plaintiff gavenotice to the 1't defendant on 22.08.2001, informing that thesaid GPA stands cancelled.It is further stated that afterlapse of 2 years 7 months,the plaintiff issued the notice of cancellationof GPA to the 1* defendant and thatthe giftdeed executed in favour of the 2"d defendant trust isa valid giftand the plaintiff has no right to claim the saidproperty. Once the propertywas executed in favour ofthe 2na defendant trust, it cannotbe transferred deviatingthe TrustDeed. It is further stated that the plaintiff never paidtax to the concerneddepartment and that the 2"d defendanthad paid all the taxes in the nameof
rcSI A l.N<r.1005 of 2010
I
the said i: ust and, therefore, requested the Clourt to dismiss the suit vr ith exemplary costs.
Duting trial, the plaintiff examined hirrcelf as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-I to A-9.()n t,ehali of the defendarL s, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined ard got marked Ex.B'l to'E 19.
Tlrt: h'ial Court, after considering the errtire evidence, both or,ll and documentary, and the respecti'rer contentions of the lerar nr-'d Counsel appearing on either sic e, de creed the suit ageri:: st defendant No.2 by declaring th;r. the gift deed bearing rJccument No.42/99 dated 02.01.199') exe,cuted by defenderL |Jo.1 in favour of defendant t.\o.2 is non,:st in law and defr: rclant No.2 is directed to rlelivrrr tl-re vacant possessic': r of the suit schedule property kr the plaintiff withrn Fr o months from the date of decree, faili,rg which the plaintiff is at liberty to recover possessi:rr o the suit land frc,nr defendant No.2 by following due prroce;s of law. Suit agairr st defendant No.1 was dismissed as al.raterd.
rssl A.S.No.1005 of 2010
10
Aggrieved by the aforesaidjudgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.2, inter alia, contending that the 2"d defendant is a registered Educational Trust, which is a public Trust within the meaning of Section 2 of Act 30/87 and as such the suit is not maintainable against it. If any relief is to be claimed against the 2"d defendant, the same can be claimed under the provisiors of Act30/87, but not before the Civil Court and thus thejudgment anddecree is void. Itis contended that the 1't defendant died during the pendency of the suit and that no legal representativeswere brought on record and, therefore, the suit itself is abatedas no declaration can be grantedagainst a dead Person. Itis further contended that the plaintiffexecuteda registered irrevocable GPA in favour ofthe 1't defendantpermitting him to transfer the landin favour ofthird parties and accordingly the 1"t defendant executed a registered giftdeed dated 02.01.1999 transferring the suit schedule property in
r,Ssl ,r S.No 1005 of 2010
11
favour 6fI [11 fnd defendant in exercise of powr:r; ol the said GPA, h<>rr e'/er, the suit was filed much late r in the year 2003 seerking declaration that the gift deed irr r,6i,1 and as such th€ ri rit is barred by limitation. The 1* rlefendant has not led an ,,,cral or documentary evidence in su:port of the claim a:r,: , therefore, requested the Court k a [ow the appeal try setting aside the judgment and decrc.<r ol the trial Court.
Hr:ard the learned Counsel appearing on ei:her side and penrsr rd the entire material available on re:crd
The plainti-ff, who was examined as P.\'1, filecl his chief-exarr ination affidavit reiterating tl-re conten :s oi the plaint. ).r' hjs cross-examination, he stated thz.t he is a Post Graduate irL Engineering and was rulrning rr(lhemical factory irl |e,edimetla during the period 1980-199() and he was effr:<: e<l with paralysis in the year t1)91 and was suffered f< r L Vz year. He purchased the suit r;checiule land
r€sl A.S.No.1005 of 2010
12
from one Reddy, but he does not remember his complete name His vendor sold the suit land by executing a registered sale deed in his favour and he filed the certified copy of the registered sale deed as the original sale deed is in the custody of the GPA holder. He further stated that he has not filed any document to prove that the suit schedule land was purchased by him. He had a letter issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to substantiate the fact that he has purchased the suit schedule land, but he did not file the said letter. Though he stated that he has purchased the suit schedule land by paying the net cash in three instalments, he did not file the receipts to substantiate the same. He further stated that he has paid the sale consideration through one Shankar Yadav. He has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.307 and it was situated within the limits of Bachupalli village and Gajula Ramaram of Qutbullapur Mandal, but he does not remember its boundaries. The land was a grazing land and there were
rssJ A.li.Nc.1005 of 2010
13
boul,lers arrd bushes in the said land. Th,: said survey number,: )rrsists of Ac.70.00 of land and 16 tc 20 persons purchas;e( the said land at the instance of s;rid Shankar Yadav w th a view to develop the land collectively. He further sli terd that he has executed the GPA in favc,ur of one Mallesh ()t:fendant No.1) at the instance of said Shankar Yadav,ari h a direction to develop the land. P.W 1 further admitted that he did not pay the requisite lancl re:venue in respect of the suit schedule land as the GPA tLolder assured that he u,ru,ld pay the same. He admitted that th,: patta of the suit knrl is in his name, but the sale dee<l in respect of the s;uil s:l-Ledule land is not in his name. The Revenue Divisiona()fficer had issued the patta in hir; nanre on the basis of tl re application filed by him. He further admitted that he : a<I given a press note in the daily newspaper cancelli:'r;i the GPA, to which the 1't defendant gave a reply
rssl A.S.No.1005 of 2010
14
One B.Shyamsunder, one of the FounderTrustees of
the 2"d defendant Trust, was examinedas D.W.1, andhe
stated in the cross-examination thathe had filed documents
to show that one Shankar Yadav acquiredthe suit schedule property, however the nameof saidShankarYadav was not appearing on Ex.Bl0OccuPancyRightsCertificate issued by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer in favourof the plaintiff.
He admitted in his cross-examinationthat the said Shankar Yadav has not acquired any title overthe suit schedule property as per Ex.B10. He furtheradmitted thatexcept Ex.B10, no other documentwas filed by him to show the title of the said Shankar Yadav.He further admittedthat he did not file any document to showthat Ex.BS-GPA was executed on the instructiorsof ShankarYadav,but there
were oral instructions to the plaintiffas he was an employee of the said Shankar Yadav.D.W.1 stated that the Trust was
created and registeredin the yeat 1997.He admittedthat as
per Ex.BS, the plaintiffis the owner and possessor of the suit
rrssl A.S.'{o.1105 o( 2010
'15
schedrrle F, ooerty and that as per clause No.1 cf Ex.BS, the 1't defen<la lt was authorized to sell, lease, transl:er by way of exchanJ e and mortgage the suit schedule property. D.W.1 in [r s further cross-examination admitted that there is no rec t,:l rn Ex.B5 empowering the 1st deferrciant to gift the prop,:r'y mentioned in it and that clause (1 ) c,f Ex.B5 states that l,e shall only sell and lease the proper.t1,.
D.VV l, who is one of the Founder T'rustees of defenclant 'Io.2-Trust, stated that the real owlrlr of the suit schedrrlc. [)-operty u,as late K.Shankar Yadav, rvhrt is the founder lr- stee of the said Trust, and he diecl on 08.19.1999 He furth:r'statecl thar at the time of execution of the gift deed, irrr:r, rcable GPA in favour of the l"t delendant is in existerrce a rct the gift deed dated 02.01.1999 is., it valid gift and that tlr: plaintiff has no right, title or. inte,:er;t over the suit sche,-1 - le property. He stated that in the t:ar;e rtf Trust properh/, tre Benami transactions (prohibitior) A:t, 19gg
TsSJ A.S.No.105 of 2010
16
does not apply. In the cross-examinatiorL he stated that the Trust Deed was registered on 01.07.1997 and that the plaintiff is not a member of the Trust. He further stated that he is aware of only Ex.B7 transaction.
The Point that arises for corsideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court is on proper appreciation of fac ts or not?
During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 was expired and his legal heirs were not brought on record and hence the suit against defendant No.1 was treated as abated.
Though the plaintift who was examined as P.W.l, stated in his cross-examination that he purchased the suit schedule property in the year 199L,he has not filed any sale deed relating to the said land and not even filed any receipt regarding his payment in three instalments and that he has not paid tax at any point of time. However, he stated that the patta of the suit land is in his name. D.W.1, whowas
rssl A.S..Vo.1005 of 2010
17
one oI the lounder hustees of the 2"d defendant Trust, stated
that origLr,; rlly the suit land was acquired by one K.iihankar Yadav' in tl re name of the plaintiff, so also he ar:q -rirr:d some more iands and nominally put in the names of '/r,nkatamma and \asrrr:er. Goud and instructed all of thern to execute irrevocatrl,: tl.P.As in favour of the 1,t de::errdiurt and accordin;4I' they executed Exs.B3 to 85/irrevoc,lLle(lPAs in favour of he 1't defendant and thereafter tt.e.r executed Exs.Bi' to 1,9-Gift Deeds to an extent of Ac.7.(t0 of land in favour 6l:,, 1s lnd defendant Trust through the-L't defendant as a GPA I^ clder. He further stated that as the plair.tiff was an empkrl.'e of said K.Shankar Yadav, he raise<l his voice only after: t re death of said K.Shankar Yadav ar,d as such he is not entil. ecl for cancellation of gift deed and for recovery of possesrsi rr of the suit schedule property. I{owt:ver, he admitted r his cross-examination that as per Ex 85, the plaintiff is ttre owner and possessor of the suit s,:hedule property
r€sl A.S.No.1005 of 2010
18
Learned Counsel for the 1.t respondent/plaintiff mainly contended that even a perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.B5/irrevocable G.P.A, dated 24.07.1991. shows that the plaintiff authorized D.Mallesh (1"t defendant) only to sell, lease, kansfer by way of exchange or mortgage whole or any part of the suit property and to receive the consideration thereof on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never authorized the 1't defendant to gift the property. However, the 1't defendant transferred the property in favour of the 2"d respondent by executing a Gift Deed dated 02.01.7999 under Ex.A8 and as such Ex.A8/Gift Deed is invalid and nonest in law as the L't defendant did not have any authority to execute the same. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellantf2"a defendant contended that as per clause (2) and (10) of Ex.B5/irrevocable GPA, the 1.t defendant was authorized to execute any other deeds, which includes Gift deeds and for gifting the property there should be donor and donee and it should be out of love and
DCCT A.S. Vo.]005 of 2010
19
affection, l: ul not for consideration. The 1't deft:ndant stated
that he g;il', ecl the properfy in favour of the 2"d d,:fe rdant at the instur --e of the said K.Shankar Yadav rts per the irrevocablr(iPA. Admittedly, there is no consilerration.
Frorr er perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.BS-G.P A, it is clear that the 'st defendant was not authorized to gift the propertv ir r Iavour of the 2.d defendant. Even as, p<tr clause (12) of the CiPA, the plaintiff has to ratify the ar:t of the 1't defendanl. But, in this case, the plaintifl'disputed the gift deed an,l 1€ never ratified or confirmed the art cf the 1s defendanl ard as such the gift deed executcd bv the 1* defenclanl in favour of the 2"d respon<lent is not valid. Merely trer ause the nomenclature was shown ;,s irrt:vocable GPA, it(:al rnot be said that it can never be revo<cd as the L"t defendanl a<ted against the interest of the pla rrfiff and not in accor,lirr<e with the terms and conditions of the GPA.
The plaini ff is always at tiberty to revoke the sam,: and as
TSSJ A.S.No.10O5 of 2010
20
such he cancelled the Power of Attorney by executing Ex.A5-registered cancellation deed and also got issued publication in local newspaper under Ex.A6. Thus, the gift deed dated 02.01.1999 executed by the 1"t defendant, as a GPA holder, in favour of the 2"d defendant is nonest in law. Merely because Venkatamma and Vasudev Goud also executed irrevocable GPAs in favour of the L$ defendant and in turn the l.tdefendant executed gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, it cannot be said that the L"t defendant was also authorized to gift the property of the properfy in favour of the 2nd defendant against the terms and conditions of the GPA. The Trust Deed under Ex.B6 was executed on 0L.07 .1997 . Though Ex.BS-GPA was executed on 24.07.7991,, Ex.AS-Gift Deed was executed on 02.01..1999 after the death of K.Shankar Yadav on 08.09.199. The said K.Shankar Yadav and the 1* defendant were also members of the 2"d defendant Trust. The said K.Shankar Yadav was a Founder trustee and was acting as a managing trustee of the 2"a
rssl 1. i lJo.1()05 of 2010
21
defendant''rust. Exs.B14 and 815- Pattadar Pas-.bo,rks and title dee<ls; filed before the Court would reveal that the plaintiff lr as; shown as owner of Ac 3.00 of land in Sy.No,30'Z,r ti19 of Gajula Ramaram village, C)utut,ullapur Mandal, .R: ngareddy District
The: r'retin contention of the 1.t defr:ndar t is that the suit land it; well as the other lands werr: acq:ired by the said K.Stra:rkar Yadav and nominally put the r;aLd lands in the namr:s of plaintiff, Venkatamma and Va;Lrder Goud respectiveJ.' ', but af ter invoking of prov isionr; of Benami Transactior s (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the said purihase of the prop,:r' y in the name of the plaintiff and :rthels is not valid. Tlrt:'e is no evidence to show that the [)r()p€,rty was purchased b.z the said Shankar Yadav in tlte' nam,: of the plaintrff ard no sale deed is filed and it rvar; brcught in evidence tl ai- on the oral instructions of the sa d K.llhankar Yadav, irrr: rocable C.P.As ^,cre executed rn l-avorrr of the 1't
T5SJ A.S-No.1005 of 2010
22
defendant. Thus, there is no evidence at all to show that the suit property belongs to the said K.Shankar yadav, but not to the plaintiff.
The learned Counsel for the appellant/D2 contended that the gift deed was execured on 02.01..7999, bqt the suit was filed much later in the year 2003 and as such the suit is barred by limitation. According to the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1, he issued a notice dated 22.0g.2001. under Ex.A2 to the 1.t defendant informing him about the cancellation of the GPA and that he came to know about the transfer of suit schedule property in favour of the 2.d defendant by the 1"t defendant through Ex.A7-reply notice dated 13.11.2001. He further stated that he obtained the certified copy of the gift deed on 29.17.2002. Therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff with regard to execution of the gift deed in favour of the 2"d defendant. The 2"d d.efendant
rssI /.3.IJo.1r)05 of 2010
23
It
further r:c' rt:nded that the suit filed againl;t the 2"d defendant'trrst represented by K.Shankar Yaclirr', who died on 08.09. t!l')9, is not maintainable as he was no n.rorrt on the date of fili rg; of the suit and thus the suit is liab]e to be dismisserl rgainst the 2"d defendant. Adnritierlly. D.W.1 was implead,:d in the place of K.Shankar Yad;v by way of amendm,ln:'and thus the contention of tht- lcarnt:d(-ounsel for the aprpr rllant/defendant No.2 cannot be acc,:f tect.
The errmed Counsel for the appellarrt,,'defendant No.2 furthr r submitted that the civil suit is not rrrintainabie against fl16r lttd respondent-Trust as it is a publi.: lrust. But, the issue o jrrrisdiction is to be raised by the 2nd defenclant at the earli rst point of time before the Civil (burt. but he kept quite Therefore, now at the appellate sta11e, ht: cannot raise the sa d objection and it is not tenablc
In vi :vr of the foregoing reasons, I find that the trial Court, alte evaluating the entire evidence both c,ral .-rnd
I5S' A.S.No.1005 of 2010
r)
24
documentary, rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the 2nd defendant by declaring that the gift deed dated 02.01.1999 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is nonest in law and also directed the 2od defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule propefty to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of decree. That apart, the suit against the 1.t defendant was dismissed as abated. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the trail Court and it needs no interference.
Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2010, passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.235 of 2003. There shatl be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD
To,
SECTION OFFICER
Njb -*"-
kam
HIGH COIUITT
PSS,J
DATED:1 310412023
JUDGMEI\II'+ DECREE
AS.No.10Cti of 2010
.. --=:=':=
z:/ ,it] 'i tA )^ o
/, .,f
l
Juil ?m
)
i^ {
:' ,y
:-. l i- .-: ' '.''
DISMISSING II: APPEAL SUIT
wtTHour coti :s
(-)
2>
6
i I l I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FIRST APPEAL NO: 1OO5 OF 2O1O
Between:
Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust, Regn. No.'t 43/97 Sanathnagar, R.R. District, Rep. by President Shyam Sunder Boorgula,S/o Late Muthyalu, 48yrs, Advocate No 7-1-210, Ameerpet,Hyderabad
...APPELLANT/OEFENDANT 2
AND
...RESPONDENT /PLAINTIFF
...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT 1
Appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 1 of C.P.C aggrievedby the Judgment and decree dated 30-10-2010passed in O.S.No.235 of2003 on the file of Vl Additional Senior Civil Judge,(FTC) at Medchal,Ranga Reddy District.
This appeal coming on for hearing and uponperusing thel\remorandum of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and thematerialpapers in thecase, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. MAHENDERREDDY,Advocate for theAppellants and Sri M. PAPA REDDY, Advocate for the RespondentNo.landnone appeared for Respondent No.2
DECREE:-fhis (l )urt Jud gment and Decree that the Decree lf the Lower Court be and hereby is c.r nlirmed and this Appeal Suit is Dismissec a nd this Court doth further Order and Decree that there be no orders as to costs in thrs Appeal.
//TRUE COPY//
SdI- I(.SItINIVASA RAO .IOIl.IT REGISTRAR t-+)
SiECTION OFFICER
To,
NJb \D"-
t\
HIGH COUI RT
PSS,J
DATED:13t0412023
DECREE+.IUDGMENT
AS.No.1Ct(li of 2010
DISMISSING TH E APPEAL SUIT
WITHOUT Co:; TS
(e 1t$
b\rs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the gift deed executed by the GPA holder (defendant No.1) in favor of defendant No.2 was valid when the GPA did not authorize gifting the property?
Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Whether the civil suit was maintainable against a public trust?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust
S.G. Rayappa Raju
D. Mallesh
P.Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
