G. RAMASWAMY@ SURYAPRAKASA RAO versus LANKA SUBBARAO PATRUDU AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 09-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
G. RAMASWAMY@ SURYAPRAKASA RAO 
A 
v. 
LANKA SUBBARAO PATRUDU AND OTHERS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1996 
K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882 : Section 122. 
Gift-Self acquired property-Gifted away to wife who in tum be-
queathed it to children of her adopted son under registered will-Gift deed · C 
and will-Genuineness of-Proved-Held : Adopted son could not alienate 
the propeity. 
The father of the appellants was adopted and the adoptive father 
executed a deed of gift in favour of his second wife in respect of his 
properties and the said gift deed was acted upon. The said properties were D 
bequeathed by his wife under a registered will in favour of the appellants. 
The father of the appellants became wayward and squandered away 
the family properties and illegally executed sale deeds. Several properties 
were sold for no consideration at all or for utterly inadequate considera-
E 
tion. The appellants filed a suit to set aside the sales effected in favour of 
the respondents by their father on the ground that he had no power of 
alienation and the sale was void on account of non-passing of considera-
tion. The Trial Court found that the Gift deed and Will were genuine and 
duly acted upon, but decreed the suit in _part. On appeal, the High Court 
while not reversing the finding of the Trial Court, held that the appellants F 
could not challenge the alienation made by their father to the extent of his 
share in the joint family property due to family necessity and that the sale 
was valid only so far as the 1/3rd share of the father was concerned but 
did not bind the appellants as far as their 2/3rd share was concerned. 
Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellants had filed the G 
present ~ppeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the properties 
having been gifted away by the original owner in favour of his wife who in 
turn had bequeathed the same by registered will in favour of the appellants 
and the Trial Court having found the gift deed and the will genuine and H 
347 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
valid and acted upon, the High Court could not have come to the con-
clusion that the sale so far as the l/3rd share of the father was concerned 
was valid. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The Trial Court had recorded the finding that the Gift 
deed in respect of the properties and the Will in favour of the appellants 
are genuine, valid and had been acted upon. The appellants' suit had been 
decreed so far as the said properties are concerned. The High Court while 
allowing the appeal, without reversing the findings of the Trial Court 
C 
proceeded on the assumption that the property being joint family property, 
the father could alienate the same for family necessity and thereby com-
mitted the error. [352-B-D] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1.2. In view of the finding of the Trial Court that the Gift Deed as · 
well as the Will are genuine, valid and had been acted upon, the father 
could not have alienated the said properties. Thus, the alienation could 
not be held to be valid even to the extent of 1/3rd as held by the High Court. 
[352-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 
1996. 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.91 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 275 of 1990. 
D. Prakash Reddy for Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellants. 
A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.B. PAITANAIK; J. Leave granted. 
This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.7.1991 in 
Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1990 arising out of Original Suit No. 
187/76. Two items of properties are involved in this appeal namely Items 
6 and 7 of the Plaint Schedule. The plaintiffs filed a suit to set aside the 
H sales effected in favour of the defendants by their father on the ground that 
-
G.RAMASWAMYv. L.S.PATRUDU[G.B.PATIANAIK,J.] 
349 
the father had no power of alienation and the sale is void on account of A 
non passing of consideration. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their grand 
father Gulla Kondala Rao had extensive properties in Visakhapatnam and 
he had acquired these properties out of his business of printing press. After 
the death of the wife of Kondala Rao he married Narasamma but as he 
did not beget any child, he adopted one Ramarao, in accordance with the B 
customs. He also executed a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.