JUDGMENT :- The appellants are spouses and the sole respondent is the sister of the 1st appellant.

2. The respondent filed O.S. No.10 of 1986 in the Court of District Munsif, Tekkali, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of two items of schedule property. Subsequently, the suit was amended by incorporating the relief of recovery of possession of the said items.

She pleaded that the properties were acquired by her mother and thereafter gifted to her, under a gift deed, dated 20-6-1970. She is said to have entrusted the properties to the 1st appellant, for management and taking advantage of the same, the latter stated asserting his own independent rights vis-a-vis the property.

3. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. They admitted that a gift deed (Ex.A.1), dated 20-6-1970, was executed by the mother of the 1st appellant and the respondent. However, it was pleaded that the sad gift deed was cancelled through another deed, dated 18-1-1978 (Ex.B.1), and that on the same day, their mother gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd appellant under Ex.B.2.

4. In short, these were the contentions before the trial Court. The suit was decreed by the trial Court through its judgment, dated 11-10-1991. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed AS. No.31 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sompeta. The appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1995. Hence, this second appeal.

5. Sri G. V. Ramana Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the Courts below proceeded as though Ex.A1 is a gift deed, though it was named as Deed of Settlement" and that even otherwise, there was nothing to disclose that the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the respondent. He contends that, either way, the respondent did not acquire any title and that there did not exist any basis for the Courts below to grant relief to her.

6. Sri M V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that Ex.A1 is an out-and-out gift deed and there is a clear recital in the document to the effect that the possession of the property was delivered simultaneously. He contends that once Ex.A.1 had been acted upon, there was no basis for cancellation of the same, through Ex.B.1 and consequently, Ex.B.2 cannot result in conferment of any title, or right on the appellants.

7. The parties are closely related to each other. Thought the suit was initially filed for the relief of perpetual injunction, the plaint was amended and the relief of recovery of possession was incorporated therein. The trial Court framed only one issue, which reflected the amended plaint i.e., whether the respondent herein is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property. Apart from deposing as PW.1, the respondent examined another witness, as PW.2. She filed Exs.A.1 to A.18. On behalf of the appellants, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and they filed Exs.B.1 to B.32. The only issue framed by the trial Court was answered in favour of the respondent. A.S.No.3 I of 1991, preferred by the appellants, was dismissed. Two questions arise for consideration in the second appeal, namely:

(a) Whether Ex.A.1 is a gift deed, or a deed of settlement ?

(b) Whether EX.A.1 was acted upon?

8. The answer to the second question would determine the validity, or otherwise of Exs.B1 and B.2.

9. ExA.1 is in Telugu. Its nomenclature, no doubt, indicates that it is a deed of settlement. However, even from a cursory reading of the document, it emerges that it contains all the ingredients of a gift deed. It started with the recital as to the relationship of the donor and the donee, who are mother and daughter, respectively. The circumstances under which the deed was executed are also indicated. It is stated that the respondent was rendering service to her mother and that the latter had firm belief that the former would continue to render such services in future also.

10. Ex.A.1, it was clearly indicated that the suit schedule property wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document