Case: Kuppala Obul Reddy Vs. Bonala Venpata Narayana Reddy (Dead) Through Lrs

of gift by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma to be a conveyance of half share of Thimma Reddy in favour of his son Yella Reddy. The conduct of Yella Reddy in entering into the deed of exchange with his wife Venkata Lakshamamma furnishes clear proof that the properties were not joint family properties and that the gift executed by his father Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma and the gift executed by Naramma in favour of her granddaughter and also daughter-in-law Venkata Lakshamamma, the wife of Yella Reddy with whom she entered into an exchange deed, were valid and Venkata lakshamamma had acquired title to the properties gifted to her by Naramma. The clear findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court after the further hearing on the basis of the order of remand of High Court are that the deed of exchange had in fact, been acted upon and on the basis of the deed of exchange parties had taken possession and Venkata Lakshamamma remained in possession of the remaining properties after execution of the deed of exchange and also came into possession of the portion of the house which was allotted to her as a result of the exchange between herself and her husband Yella Reddy. These clear findings went unchallenged and were final. The High Court went wrong in ignoring these findings on the ground that by mere recognition Venkata Lakshamamma did not get any title to the property and the mere fact that the parties were under the impression that the properties belonged to Venkata Lakshamamma could not confer upon her any title under the law. Apart from the question that there were no pleadings as to the properties being joint family properties and no issue as to joint family had been raised and there was no proper evidence to make out any case of the properties being joint family properties, the High Court should have appreciated that the deed of exchange by and between Yella Reddy and his wife Venkata Lakshamamma which was acted upon between the parties established that the properties could not be and were not joint family properties.16. We have earlier set out the deed of gift executed by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma. The document clearly establishes that the properties were gifted by Thimma Reddy to his wife Naramma absolutely. This document cannot be interpreted to construe a trust in favour of Yella Reddy and cannot be construed by any process of construction to be a conveyance in respect of the donors half share to the son Yella Reddy. The mere reference to the son in the recital of the document does not indicate any intention of creating any trust or of making any conveyance of the properties in favour of the son. The recital only indicates that as Naramma was complaining that her husband Thimma Reddy who had taken a second wife was showing greater affection for the second wife and as Naramma who had a son wanted to be suitably provided, the deed of gift was was being executed by Thimma Reddy. The recital only indicates the circumstances which prompted Thimma Reddy to execute the deed of gift. The document clearly and unequivocally shows that this was a deed of gift in favour of the wife and by the document the properties mentioned in the deed of gift were being given to Naramma absolutely. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the deed of gift executed by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma was a valid deed of gift and under this deed of gift Naramma acquired full and complete title to the properties mentioned in the deed of gift. As Naramma had perfect title in the properties gifted to her by her husband and she was the full owner of the said properties, she was perfectly competent to make gift of the said properties to her granddaughter who also happened to be her daughter-in-law, Venkata Lakshamamma. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that Yella Reddy was frittering away the various other properties which had come to him from his father and were also not pulling on very well with his wife Venkata Lakshamamma who was also the granddaughter of Naramma (daughters daughter), Naramma wanted suitable provision to be made for Venkata Lakshamamma. Venkata Lakshamamma, therefor, became complete owner of the properties gifted to her by Naramma and as full owner of the properties she was free to deal with and dispose of the same in any manner she chose. Asserting and exercising her right of ownership she had executed the deed of exchange with her husband, transferring part of the properties for obtaining the portion of the house from her husband and retaining the other properties which she subsequently sold to the appellant. Venkata Lakshamamma as true owner of the properties for obtaining the portion of the house from her husband and retaining by her out of the properties gifted to her by Naramma after transferring a portion thereof to the husband in exchange of the portion of the house, could and did validly sell the remaining properties to the appellant; and the appellant, therefore, acquired proper title to the properties which were sold to him by Venkata Lakshamamma and which were mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint. As in our view Venkata Lakshamamma had proper title to the properties which she could and did lawfully and validly transfer to the appellant by the sale-deed executed by her in favour of the appellant, the appellant and acquired proper title to these properties and had become the lawful owner thereof. In that view of the matter it does not become necessary for us to consider whether Yella Reddy by entering into the deed of exchange became estopped from challenging the validity of the title of his wife Venkata Lakshamamma and the respondent who seeks to drive title from Yella Reddy, is also so estopped.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. We find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. No case is made out in the pleadings with regard to the properties gifted by Thimma Reddy to his wife Naramma being joint family properties. No issue with regard to the properties being joint family properties was raised and no such issue could possibly have been raised in the absence of any pleading. The evidence of Yella Reddy in the suit does not mention that the properties gifted by his father to his mother under the deed of gift belonged to the joint family. In the absence of any pleading and any issue and further in the absence of any proper evidence, the view expressed by the learned Judge of the High Court that the properties were joint family properties is clearly unwarranted. There may be presumption that there is a Hindu joint family but there can be no presumption that the joint family possesses joint family properties. The findings of the Lower Appellate Court that the deed of gift executed by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma "should be regarded as conveyance of the fathers half share in favour of the son who is also entitled to half share of A Schedule properties" accepted and approved by the High Court in its judgment is clearly erroneous. It is indeed difficult to understand and appreciate how the Lower Appellate Court and the High Court could construe a clear deed of gift by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma to be a conveyance of half share of Thimma Reddy in favour of his son Yella Reddy. The conduct of Yella Reddy in entering into the deed of exchange with his wife Venkata Lakshamamma furnishes clear proof that the properties were not joint family properties and that the gift executed by his father Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma and the gift executed by Naramma in favour of her granddaughter and alsoVenkata Lakshamamma, the wife of Yella Reddy with whom she entered into an exchange deed, were valid and Venkata lakshamamma had acquired title to the properties gifted to her by Naramma. The clear findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court after the further hearing on the basis of the order of remand of High Court are that the deed of exchange had in fact, been acted upon and on the basis of the deed of exchange parties had taken possession and Venkata Lakshamamma remained in possession of the remaining properties after execution of the deed of exchange and also came into possession of the portion of the house which was allotted to her as a result of the exchange between herself and her husband Yella Reddy. These clear findings went unchallenged and were final. The High Court went wrong in ignoring these findings on the ground that by mere recognition Venkata Lakshamamma did not get any title to the property and the mere fact that the parties were under the impression that the properties belonged to Venkata Lakshamamma could not confer upon her any title under the law. Apart from the question that there were no pleadings as to the properties being joint family properties and no issue as to joint family had been raised and there was no proper evidence to make out any case of the properties being joint family properties, the High Court should have appreciated that the deed of exchange by and between Yella Reddy and his wife Venkata Lakshamamma which was acted upon between the parties established that the properties could not be and were not joint family properties.16. We have earlier set out the deed of gift executed by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma. The document clearly establishes that the properties were gifted by Thimma Reddy to his wife Naramma absolutely. This document cannot be interpreted to construe a trust in favour of Yella Reddy and cannot be construed by any process of construction to be a conveyance in respect of the donors half share to the son Yella Reddy. The mere reference to the son in the recital of the document does not indicate any intention of creating any trust or of making any conveyance of the properties in favour of the son. The recital only indicates that as Naramma was complaining that her husband Thimma Reddy who had taken a second wife was showing greater affection for the second wife and as Naramma who had a son wanted to be suitably provided, the deed of gift was was being executed by Thimma Reddy. The recital only indicates the circumstances which prompted Thimma Reddy to execute the deed of gift. The document clearly and unequivocally shows that this was a deed of gift in favour of the wife and by the document the properties mentioned in the deed of gift were being given to Naramma absolutely. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the deed of gift executed by Thimma Reddy in favour of his wife Naramma was a valid deed of gift and under this deed of gift Naramma acquired full and complete title to the properties mentioned in the deed of gift. As Naramma had perfect title in the properties gifted to her by her husband and she was the full owner of the said properties, she was perfectly competent to make gift of the said properties to her granddaughter who also happened to be herVenkata Lakshamamma. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that Yella Reddy was frittering away the various other properties which had come to him from his father and were also not pulling on very well with his wife Venkata Lakshamamma who was also the granddaughter of Naramma (daughters daughter), Naramma wanted suitable provision to be made for Venkata Lakshamamma. Venkata Lakshamamma, therefor, became complete owner of the properties gifted to her by Naramma and as full owner of the properties she was free to deal with and dispose of the same in any manner she chose. Asserting and exercising her right of ownership she had executed the deed of exchange with her husband, transferring part of the properties for obtaining the portion of the house from her husband and retaining the other properties which she subsequently sold to the appellant. Venkata Lakshamamma as true owner of the properties for obtaining the portion of the house from her husband and retaining by her out of the properties gifted to her by Naramma after transferring a portion thereof to the husband in exchange of the portion of the house, could and did validly sell the remaining properties to the appellant; and the appellant, therefore, acquired proper title to the properties which were sold to him by Venkata Lakshamamma and which were mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint. As in our view Venkata Lakshamamma had proper title to the properties which she could and did lawfully and validly transfer to the appellant by theexecuted by her in favour of the appellant, the appellant and acquired proper title to these properties and had become the lawful owner thereof. In that view of the matter it does not become necessary for us to consider whether Yella Reddy by entering into the deed of exchange became estopped from challenging the validity of the title of his wife Venkata Lakshamamma and the respondent who seeks to drive title from Yella Reddy, is also so estopped.