I. VENKATANARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE first defendant is the appellant. A suit O. S. No. 80 of 1995 has been filed by the plaintiff on the file of the Sub-Court, Avanigadda for declaration of title and possession of the Suit schedule property from the defendants.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal would be referredto in accordance with their ranking in the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit schedule property is a terraced house constructed in 3751/4square yards of site in assessment No. 1131 of the village Mopidevi. The suit schedule property was purchased by 4th defendant on 5-3-1983. Originally it was a vacant site, but subsequent to purchase the 4th defendant has constructed a house. The defendants 1 and 3 are the son and daughter of 4th defendant. The 3rd defendant is the unmarried daughter of the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant executed the gift deeds on 10-8-1987 and on 21-8-1987 regarding the suit property benefiting the 3rd defendant with absolute rights. The 3rd defendant in her turn sold the suit property to the plaintiffs on 7-9-1988 under a registered sale deed. The plaintiff has contended in his plaint that he is neighbour to the defendants 3 and 4 and defendants 1, 3 and 4 promised him to vacate the house soon after they secured alternative accommodation. But the first defendant has served a caveat notice on the plaintiff according to which the suit property belongs to him and he sold the same under the agreement of sale to the second defendant. Jn such circumstances the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property.

( 4 ) THE suit is resisted by the first defendant. He filed the written statementwhich was adopted by the second defendant. According to the written statement of the first defendant the suit property was acquired originally by his father Damodhar Rao with self earnings but obtained the sale deed da ted 5-3-1982 in the name of his wife 4th defendant. So the 4th defendant has no title to gift the property to third defendant. The first defendant also contended that his father Damodhar Rao has executed his last will and testament be queathing the suit property to him and after the death of Damodhar Rao the will marked as Ex. B-6 came into effect under which the fourth defendant has only a limited right of residence leaving the vested remainder to the 1st defendant. It is his contention that the plaintiff has played fraud and undue influence over defendants 3 and 4 due to the disputes between defendants 1 and 4 in these days. It is also his contention that the 3rd defendant was a minor at the time of the gift and also at the time of sale and therefore she could not have validly accepted the gift and validly executed the sale deed.

( 5 ) THE defendants 3 and 4 have filed independent written statementscontending that the first defendant refused to look after the welfare of the defendants 3 and 4 and the 3rd defendant was yet to be married. The plaintiff was living next to their house started influencing the 4th defendant promising thathe would see that the property will be saved from 1st defendant. He gained the confidence of the defendants 3 and 4 and induced the plaintiff to execute the registered gift deeds with respect to the property in favour of the 3rd defendant. In short they supported the case of the plaintiff but also set up an independent plea that the first defendant has not been looking after them. After the framing of issues and before the commencement of the trial defendants 3 to 4 have given up their defence.

( 6 ) BASED on the pleadings the trial Court has addressed itself to issue"whether the registered gift deed dated 10-8-1987 and 21-8-1987 are true and valid and whether the sale deed dated 7-9-1988 is true and valid and whether the will dated 28-2-1985 is true and valid?" Based on the oral and documentary evidence the trial Court has decreed the suit holding that Ex. B-6 will is not executed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document