C. Nagappan JUDGMENT
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. An apparent conflict between two earlier decisions rendered by this Court one in Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker and Ors. MANU/SC/1045/1997 : (1997) 2 SCC 255 and the other in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam and Ors. MANU/SC/1071/2003 : (2004) 1 SCC 581 has led to this reference to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement as to the true and correct interpretation of Sections 122 and 123 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Before we deal with the precise area in which the two decisions take divergent views, we may briefly set out the factual matrix in which the controversy arises.
2. The Plaintiff-Respondent in this appeal filed O.S. No. 979 of 1989 for a declaration to the effect that revocation deed dated 5th March, 1986 executed by the Defendant-Appellant purporting to revoke a gift deed earlier executed by her was null and void. The Plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that the gift deed executed by the Defendant-Appellant was valid in the eyes of law and had been accepted by the Plaintiff when the donee-Defendant had reserved to herself during for life, the right to enjoy the benefits arising from the suit property. The purported revocation of the gift in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent in terms of the revocation deed was, on that basis, assailed and a declaration about its being invalid and void ab initio prayed for.
3. The suit was contested by the Defendant-Appellant herein on several grounds including the ground that the gift deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The parties led evidence and went through the trial with the trial Court eventually holding that the deed purporting to revoke the gift in favour of the Plaintiff was null and void. The Trial Court found that the Defendant had failed to prove that the gift deed set up by the Plaintiff was vitiated by fraud or undue influence or that it was a sham or nominal document. The gift, according to trial Court, had been validly made and accepted by the Plaintiff, hence, irrevocable in nature. It was also held that since the donor had taken no steps to assail the gift made by her for more than 12 years, the same was voluntary in nature and free from any undue influence, mis-representation or suspicion. The fact that the donor had reserved the right to enjoy the property during her life time did not affect the validity of the deed, opined the trial Court.
4. In the first appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree, the first Additional District Judge, Warangal affirmed the view taken by the trial Court and held that the Plaintiff had satisfactorily proved the execution of a valid gift in his favour and th........