2. O.S.No.192 of 2004 is filed by Mr. Merugu Babu against his
injunction, and O.S.No.526 of 2004 is filed by Mr. Merugu Babu for
Grameena Bank. O.S.No.526 of 2004 is partly decreed in favour of
the plaintiff-Mr. Merugu Babu and that O.S.No.192 of 2004 is also
of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
3. Appeal in A.S.No.607 of 2009 has been filed by the plaintiff in
O.S.No.526 of 2004 before this Court for granting the suit relief.
4. Appeal in A.S.No.109 of 2008 is filed by the A.P. Grameena
Principal District Judge at Warangal.
5. Appeal in A.S.No.129 of 2008 is filed by Smt. Naganaboina
O.S.No.192 of 2004 before the Principal District Judge at Warangal.
6. The Appeals i.e., A.S.No.109 and A.S.No.129 of 2008 pending
7. O.S.No.192 of 2004 is taken as a lead case, and the contentions
and findings arrived at by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, in
8. The brief facts of the case are that a Gift Settlement Deed dated
and his own sister Smt. Kanneboina Saroja and by virtue of gift
settlement deed, the plaintiff and his sister Smt. K.Saroja became
square yards. It is stated that the plaintiff and his sister Smt. K.Saroja
9. That in the year 1991, the plaintiff-Merugu Babu has let-out
in the month of March, 1992 and M/s. Kakatiya Grameena Bank
Rs.1500/- per month.
10. It is further stated that after expiry of lease period in 1998, no
deposit account. The plaintiff contended that he issued a letter dated
Rs.3,800/- per month w.e.f. 01.03.2003 and as there was no reply
11. Further, the plaintiff has also filed O.S.No.192 of 2004, against
his sister Smt. Naganaboina Mallamma for perpetual injunction
perpetual injunction against his sister Smt. Naganaboina Mallamma.
12. Learned trial Court has framed the following issues after filing
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as
prayed for ?
2. To what relief ?
In O.S.No.526 of 2004:
A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages as prayed for ?
B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent with
cumulative and compound bank interest for the period
from 01.03.2003 till 31.10.2004 @ Rs.3,800/- in all
Rs.76,000/- along with future effect i.e., till the disposal of
the suit ?
C. Whether the court fee is insufficient ?
D. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties i.e., D2 ?
E. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ?
F. To what relief ?
13. In view of the fact that the suit schedule property in both the
suits is one and the same, both the suits were clubbed together and
evidence was let-in.
14. After framing the above issues, the learned trial Court has
considered the oral and documentary evidence in both the suits i.e.,
P.Ws.1 to 3, DWs.1 to 3, and Exs.A1 toA15 and Exs.B1 to B10 in
O.S.No.192 of 2004 and P.Ws.1 & 2 and DW.1 and Exs.A1 toA33 and
Exs.B1 and B2 in O.S.No.526 of 2004.
15. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record on behalf of parties, the learned trial Court by common
judgment and decree, dated 15.07.2008, granted the damages of
Rs.50,000/- against the defendant-Bank along with rents to be paid
from April, 2003 to September, 2004 by partly decreeing the
O.S.No.526 of 2004, and also decreed the suit in O.S.No.192 of 2004
by restraining the defendant therein Smt.Naganaboina Mallamma
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
16. Now the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.526 of 2004 has filed
A.S.No.607 of 2009 claiming enhancement of damages @
Rs.5,00,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- granted by the trial Court, and
that Tr.A.S.No.20 of 2011 (A.S.No.109 of 2008) is filed by the
appellants/defendant-bank authorities challenging the partly
decreetal of O.S.No.526 of 2004, and Tr.A.S.No.16 of 2011
(A.S.No.129 of 2008) is filed by Smt. Naganaboina Mallamma, who
is the defendant in O.S.No.192 of 2004.
17. The trial Court has categorically held that the Bank was in
possession of the suit building bearing No.1-140 as a tenant for a
specific period till 2004 and though the period of tenancy expired in
February, 2003, and the defendant No.1-bank without enhancing the
rent or without pending lease deed continued in possession of the
suit schedule building till 2004 and held that the suit schedule
property was vacated by the defendant-bank on 12.07.2004 and the
said fact was came to the notice of the plaintiff on 22.09.2004 and
that the trial Court categorically held that the plaintiff is entitled to
receive rent from April, 2003 to September 2004, as the rent for the
month of March, 2003 was deposited in the loan account of the
plaintiff and in the absence of any evidence regarding notice for
enhancement of rent from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,800/- per month, as the
plaintiff has not adduced any proof to show that the property would
fetch rent @ Rs.3,800/- per month, learned trial Court come to a
conclusion and fixed the enhanced rentals @ Rs.2,250/- i.e., 10%
enhanced rent for every year and the trial Court held that non-
payment of rent is caused inconvenience to the plaintiff and that
though the plaintiff claimed Rs.5,00,000/-, which in the opinion of
the trial Court was excessive, however an amount of Rs.50,000/- was
awarded towards the damages to the plaintiff.
18. Insofar as O.S.No.192 of 2004, the evidence on record was
considered by the trial Court and it is stated that defendant therein
i.e. Smt. N.Mallamma, who has already gifted the suit building to
the plaintiff, slept over for more than 12 years from 1992 to 2004 i.e.,
the date of registered gift settlement deed till to the vacation of the
permission by the bank authorities and only in the year 2004 the said
suit was filed claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property
and demanded rents. The learned trial Court having appreciated the
evidence on record has categorically held that the lease deed was
executed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.526 of 2004 and the construction
was carried by her brother. In that view of the matter, the defendant
in O.S.No.192 of 2004 along with Smt. Naganaboina Mallamma
cannot be termed as joint owners of the suit schedule property in
view of the gift settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff
vide document dated 22.09.1986, though it was alleged to be
cancelled by way of cancellation deed, dated 06.10.2003 and the
learned trial Court after holding that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the suit building by virtue of the gift settlement deed dated
22.09.1986 has categorically held that the plaintiff is sole owner and
possessor of the suit property by virtue of the gift settlement deed
and the gift settlement deed dated 22.09.1986 was acted upon and
though no proper evidence is placed to believe the same as there
was no valid proof is submitted by the defendant-Smt. N.Mallamma
and on that account, the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.194 of
2004 was decreed granting perpetual injunction to the plaintiff
restraining Smt. N.Mallamma and her men from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property.
19. Now, the appellant/plaintiff has filed A.S.No.607 of 2009
against the partly allowing O.S.No.526 of 2004 stating that the trial
Court has not granted the damages and has only granted meager
amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages and though the plaintiff is
entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- for damages, the trial Court has
erroneously granted Rs.50,000/- only and it is also the contention of
the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff that though the
scheduled property would fetch Rs.3,800/- the trial Court erred in
granting rent @ Rs.2250/- per month and it has to be enhanced to
Rs.3,800/-.
20. Insofar as Tr.A.S.No.20 of 2011 (AS No.109 of 2008), which is
filed by the defendant-Bank in O.S.No.526 of 2004 would contend
that the rent from April, 2003 to September, 2004 was kept
separately in the sundry deposit account until the settlement of the
title dispute and that the trial Court erroneously enhanced rent from
Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,250/- per month, which is not rational and it
should be reduced to Rs.1500/- per month.
21. Insofar as Tr.A.S.No.16 of 2011 (A.S.No.129 of 2008), the
appellant/defendant would contend that the trial Court ought to
have considered the cancellation of gift deed under Ex.B10, which is
the cancellation of gift deed, and the trial Court must have draw the
attention to Ex.B1-unregistered partition agreement, dated
28.02.2001. It is significant that the gift deed executed in favour of
the plaintiff was cancelled by virtue of Ex.B10, dated 06.10.2003. The
appellant would contend that the plaintiff has not derived any
source of title as gift settlement deed is cancelled, no right would be
accrued thereupon basing on the gift settlement deed, for all the
purposes the plaintiff cannot claim title over the schedule property
and that the bank cannot be directed to pay the rental amount to the
plaintiff.
22. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for appellant in
A.S.No.607 of 2009, and Smt. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for
appellants in Tr.A.S.No.20 of 2011 (A.S.No.109 of 2008) and
respondents in A.S.No.607 of 2009 and none appeared for appellant
in Tr.A.S.No.16 of 2011 and heard Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam for
respondent.
23. In all the Appeals considering the arguments by the respective
counsels for appellants as well as the respondents, the issues which
fall for consideration for consideration are that,
1. Whether the trial Court was justified in granting damages
@ Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is
entitled for any enhancement ?
2. Whether the trial Court was justified in enhancing the rent
from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2250/- per month and whether the
plaintiff is entitled for enhancement of rent @ Rs.3800/-
per month; and
3. Whether the suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff in
perpetual injunction against Smt. N.Mallamma is justified
and whether the findings are proper and just ?
24. Now, the lead case is taken as A.S.No.607 of 2009, which is
filed against only partly allowing O.S.No.526 of 2004, and for
enhancement of damages and rentals by the plaintiff.
25. The 1st and 2nd issues whether the trial Court has granted
sufficient damages to the plaintiff for non-payment of admitted
rental amounts, admittedly, rental to the plaintiff is concerned, in
fact, the rent was being enhanced initially from Rs.400/- in the year
1992 to Rs.750/- upto 1998, and thereafter 1998 to 2000 enhanced
rentals were paid @ Rs.1500/- per month. However, there was no
subsequent rental agreement executed in favour of the defendant-
bank by the plaintiff as there was no fixation of any rentals. Though
the plaintiff claimed the enhanced rental @ Rs.3,800/- per month,
however the trial Court after considering the nature of increase of
rent periodically from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,500/- per month, has
followed the very same enhancement for subsequent year from
March, 2003 up to September, 2004 and in that view of the matter,
the learned trial Court has fixed enhanced rentals for the said period
@ 10% more than the amount i.e., Rs.1,500/- and enhanced it to
Rs.22,250/- per month.
26. In that view of the matter, it is categorically stated by the
defendant-bank that the Bank branch in the schedule premises was
shifted in the month of September, 2004, and admittedly, the bank
vacated the premises from September, 2004 and that there was no
lease deed from March, 2003 to September, 2004, and in that view of
the matter, the leaned trial Court has rightly fixed the amount of
enhanced rent @ Rs.2,250/- per month, by following the very same
proportionate of increase of rent from 1992 to 2003, when the lease
was subsisting by virtue of lease agreement.
27. In that view of the matter, the enhanced rental @ Rs.2,250/- as
arrived at by the trial Court is just and proper, and the said amount
is valid and it does not require any further enhancement and as
such, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff
that the defendant bank shall pay Rs.3,800/- per month is
misconceived and the said findings need no interference by this
Court.
28. So far as the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed towards
damages for non-payment of amounts, at the enhanced rental is
concerned, the notice had been given by the plaintiff, and the
contention of the learned counsel for appellant seeking damages at
Rs.5,00,000/-, appears to be excessive, and the Bank vacated the
premises in September, 2004. The learned trial Court has rightly
assessed the damages at Rs.50,000/-, payable to the plaintiff, in the
absence of any lease agreement for the period from March 2003 to
September, 2004. Further, the amounts were already deposited into
the loan account of the plaintiff, which had been advanced on
several occasions, and were also utilized towards repairs and
maintenance of the suit building. In that view of the matter, the
findings arrived at by the learned trial Court by fixing the damages
@ Rs.50,000/- are also just and proper, and the same do not warrant
any interference by this Court.
29. In that view of the matter, the Appeal in A.S.No.607 of 2009
filed by the appellant/plaintiff is misconceived and the judgment
and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are proper and do
not warrant any interference by this Court.
30. Insofar as Tr.A.S.No.20 of 2011 (A.S.No.109 of 2008), which is
filed by the defendant-bank, wherein enhanced rentals @ Rs.2,250/-
per month fixed by the trial Court was challenged and in that view
of the matter, the very same issue which is answered by this Court
in the preceding paragraphs in A.S.No.607 of 2009 holds good, and
the Appeal filed by the defendant-bank is misconceived and
accordingly is liable to be dismissed.
31. Insofar as Tr.A.S.No.16 of 2011 (A.S.No.129 of 2008), the
assertion of the appellant that the trial Court ought to have
considered the cancellation of gift deed under Ex.B10, where the gift
settlement deed was cancelled by the defendant in O.S.No.192 of
2004. As seen from the record, the gift was executed vide registered
gift settlement deed vide document dated 22.09.1986, and the
plaintiff has also applied for sanction of building for construction of
commercial complex over the said property and the said permission
was obtained from the competent authority, and the building was
constructed and let-out to the defendant-Bank in O.S.No.526 of 2004,
and that it is trite law that once the gift deed is executed out of love
and affection and is acted upon subsequently and thus, gift deed
cannot be cancelled unilaterally. In that view of the matter, the
alleged cancellation deed marked as Ex.B10 does not carry any legal
significance in the present case. It is well settled law that gift deed
once acted upon cannot be cancelled unilaterally, and as such, the
cancellation of gift deed is impermissible in the eye of law, as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 and Satya Pal
Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others2. If the parties seek
cancellation of the said document, they must approach the
competent Civil Court, subject to their entitlement, and that once a
gift deed is validly executed, the question of its unilateral revocation
does not arise and is legally untenable, and in that view of the
matter, Ex.B10 cannot be given any credence and no right will flow
to the defendant-Smt. N.Mallamma in O.S.No.194 of 2004. Thus, the
trial Court rightly observed that, in view of the permission being
granted to the plaintiff in the lead case, coupled with registration of
gift settlement deed in his favor and as such, the title and possession
is totally vested with the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the
(2010) 15 SCC 207
(2016) 10 SCC 767
findings arrived at by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff in the
lead case is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the
appellant/defendant in Tr.A.S.No.16 of 2011 are justified and
proper, and the same needs no interference by this Court and said
Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
32. The learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff in A.S.No.607 of
2009 would contend that though the plaintiff claiming amounts of
enhanced rentals from the date of suit to as on today, the plaintiff is
entitled to receive the amounts by periodical enhancement of the
rentals and the learned counsel for the defendant-bank stated that
the property has already been vacated in September, 2004 and
further amounts were also not claimed in the suit, and the trial
Court has also considered the very same fact and categorically held
that the building has been vacated by the bank in September, 2004
and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff is not entitled for further
amounts from the bank and consequently, the Appeal in A.S.No.607
of 2009 and Tr.A.S.No.20 of 2011 are liable to be dismissed.
33. In the light of above discussion and observations, all the
Appeals in A.S.No.607 of 2009, Tr.A.S.No.20 of 2011 and
Tr.A.S.No.16 of 2011 are devoid of merits and accordingly
dismissed, by confirming the common judgment and decree dated
15.07.2008 passed by the trial Court in the original suits.
34. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications if any shall stand closed.
________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J
Date: 02.04.2026
kkm
