The plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking declaration that they have right to enjoy the suit

property and
the Usufructs grown in it towards their maintenance by actual, physical possession during the life
time of defendant No.4 (now deceased) and they became the absolute owners of the said property
after the life time of defendant No.4 as per the settlement deed (gift deed) dated 22.11.1969.
Further, they also sought consequential relief to hold that 4th defendant (now deceased) had
absolutely no right, title or interest over the said property to execute the sale deed dated 30.04.1971
in favour of 1st defendant, on his behalf and on behalf of plaintiffs and also to hold that the
subsequent sale deeds dated 12.12.1973 and 24.06.1981 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd
defendant and in turn by 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd defendant as null and void and for
permanent injunction restraining he 3rd defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule property physically during the life time of the 4th
defendant and thereafter possession and enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiffs absolutely
after the lifetime of the 4th defendant.

On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that B.N.Gudiyappa, under his Will dated 4- 4-52 created a life
interest over the schedule property in favour of this daughter-in-law Smt.Vedamma, with a
stipulation that after her death defendant No.4 and his brother Nanjundappa taken equal Shares?

2) If so, do they further prove on the death of B.N.Gudiyappa on 6-5-1952, Smt.Vedamma, his
daughter-in-law came in possession of the schedule property as per the terms that Will?

3) Do plaintiffs prove the 4th defendant by a registered Release-cum-Sale Deeddated 5-9-1958 gave
up his half share acquired under the Will over the Schedule property in favour of his mother
Smt.Vedamma, his brother Nanjundappa and his sisters Komala Devi, Sathyamaladevi and
Lakshmidevi for valuable consideration and by virtue of that release-cum-sale Deed dated 5-

9-58, his mother Smt.Vedamma, his brother Nanjundappa and his sisters Komaladevi, Shyamaladevi
and Lakshmidevi became the absolute owners to reversionary right of 4th defendant in respect of his
half share in the suit property?

4) Do they further prove, after lapse of ten years of 4th defendant executing the release-cum-sale
Deed Smt.Vedamma, through registered Settlement (GIFT) deed dated 22-11-1969 transferred the
entire suit property in favour of plaintiffs and 5th defendant with a stipulation that 4th defendant
shall remain passion over it for the well being of himself and the members of this family including
plaintiffs and 5th defendant shall not alienate the same by way of sale or any other manner and
preserve it for the beneficial enjoyment of plaintiffs and 5th defendant?

5) If so, the sale transaction entered into by 4th defendant with 1st defendant through registered
sale deed dated 30- 04-1971 did not divest any rights, over the schedule property in favour of 1st
defendant and subsequent saletransaction are not binding on the plaintiffs?
 6) Do plaintiffs prove the physical possession of the Schedule property being held
by them and 5th defendant as on the date of suit? 7) Whether the suit is barred by time,
as contended by 3rd defendant? 8) Are plaintiffs entitled for the relief of

declaration and injunction sought for?

9) What Decree or order?

On hearing the arguments and on consideration of the evidence so placed on record, the Court
below deemed it fit to decree the suit declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit
property; the sale deed dated 30.04.1971 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of the 1st
defendant and subsequent sale deeds dated 12.12.1973 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of
the 2nd defendant, the sale deed dated 24.06.1981 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd
defendant are null and void and also the 3rd defendant was restrained by means of permanent
injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.3 is in appeal interalia
contending amongst other grounds that the reasons assigned by the Court below is apparently
unjustified and illegal; the appreciation of the will by the Court below is not proper; the testator has
bequeathed other properties in favour of other family members.

the main crux of the matter in the suit is as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of the
appellant is the off spring of the sale deed which was void abinito or was it a voidable document.

If the said document is void abinitio, neither the question of limitation will arise nor the document
will afford any right or interest to the purchaser including the subsequent purchasers; if the
document is held to be voidable, then the question of limitation will arise and the plaintiffs are
required to establish that the suit filed by them is not barred by limitation.

it is seen that the property in dispute was the subject matter of the will executed by one Gudiyappa
under which Sonnappa acquired the right subject to the life interest of his mother as detailed in the
will, however to the knowledge of Sonnappa himself, he executed the deed of release in favour of his
mother and brother to whom 1/2 undivided share was given under the said will. In this regard, the
learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as no co-parcenary right was existing between
them and Vedamma cannot be held as owner of the property the question of releasing of right of
Sonnappa in her favour was not proper.. In this context, it is to be seen that on perusal of the will, it
is clearly mentioned that the schedule property is bequeathed to the joint names of both Sonnappa
and Nanjundappa, their individual share is not defined or identified and it is clearly mentioned that
all those properties were bequeathed in favour of his grand sons in equal proportion between the
said Sonnappa and his brother Nanjundappa. In the circumstances, the execution of the release deed
by Sonnappa in favour of Nanjundappa and also in favour of his mother who had life interest under
the said will cannot be said to be invalid document. Besides the said release deed is also registered
and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is received by said Sonnappa by his brother and his mother.
Thus it is held that the contract of sale entered into between the 4th defendant and the 1st
defendant is void abinitio as the vendor has no subsisting right or title with him to execute the sale
deed in favour of the 1st defendant. In the circumstances, subsequent contracts entered into
between defendant Nos. 1 and 2, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are also void documents, they cannot
acquire better title that what the 1st defendant and his vendor had derived. In the circumstances, as
the document, is not a voidable document, the question of limitation basically does not arise and
even otherwise as observed already, during the life time of defendant No.4, the plaintiffs had no
cause of action as their right would accrue on his death. Thus the judgment and decree passed by the
Court below is entitled to be sustained and the same cannot be interfered with.