Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors., 2026

The appellant claimed that the properties constituted ancestral/coparcenary joint-family property belonging to himself and his father. He alleged that the properties had been acquired or improved from joint-family resources and that he and his father were jointly enjoying them. 

The respondents disputed this claim. The evidence showed that several properties had actually been purchased by the father from his own earnings, and the appellant himself made admissions during cross-examination supporting their self-acquired character. 

A further dispute concerned two registered gift settlement deeds executed by the father in favour of his wife, relating to portions of the 'A' schedule property. The father subsequently executed revocation deeds before the Sub-Registrar, attempting to cancel the earlier gifts. 

The trial court dismissed the partition suit on 24 April 2001. The appellant consequently preferred the present appeal under Section 96 CPC. 

On the first issue, the Court found that the appellant failed to establish that the schedule properties were joint-family properties. His own admissions and the documentary evidence indicated that the properties were self-acquired properties of his father. The Court reiterated that the mere existence of a Hindu joint family does not create a presumption that every property is joint-family property. The person asserting the joint-family character must establish it, including the existence of a sufficient joint-family nucleus where that theory is relied upon. 

On the gift deeds, the Court held that the registered gifts had been accepted and could not be unilaterally cancelled by the donor merely by executing revocation deeds before the Sub-Registrar. Under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, revocation is permissible only in the circumstances contemplated by law. 

The Court further relied upon Supreme Court authorities concerning the limited authority of registration officers and held that a Sub-Registrar cannot effectively cancel a previously registered instrument in the manner adopted in this case. The donor's proper remedy, where fraud or invalidity is alleged, was to approach a competent civil court. 

The Court therefore held that the original gift deeds were valid, while the subsequent unilateral revocation deeds were void and non-est. 

The Court also emphasised the concept of joint-family nucleus. If a claimant establishes that a sufficient nucleus existed from which a later acquisition could reasonably have been made, the evidentiary burden may shift. But the nucleus itself must be proved; it cannot simply be presumed.

The appellant's own evidence was particularly significant. He admitted during cross-examination that various properties had been purchased by his father from his own earnings. The Court treated these admissions, together with documentary evidence, as undermining the claim that the properties were ancestral or coparcenary assets.

The Court applied Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act to emphasise that a completed gift cannot ordinarily be revoked merely because the donor later wishes to cancel it. Revocation must fall within the statutory conditions.

An important procedural principle emerging from the judgment is that the registration authority is not a substitute for a civil court for determining the validity of an already registered transaction. Where the donor alleges fraud or seeks to challenge the validity of a completed gift, the appropriate remedy is to approach a competent court.

The Court specifically observed that transfer of possession of immovable property is not necessarily a sine qua non for validity of a registered gift in the circumstances considered by the Court. The Court instead focused on the completion and acceptance of the gift and the statutory restrictions on subsequent revocation.

The judgment reinforces two important principles in property litigation: a person claiming joint-family property must prove its joint-family character, and a completed registered gift cannot ordinarily be unilaterally cancelled through the registration office.