The sole defendant in O.S.No.108 of 2002 is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

2. The 2nd plaintiff is the mother of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession by evicting the defendant therefrom. Alternatively, it was pleaded that if any construction in the schedule property is found to have been removed, then, a sum of Rs.50,000/- be awarded towards value of the removed construction in addition to the recovery of possession. Prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from making any construction thereon or from interfering in any manner over the plaint schedule property after possession thereof is delivered to the 1st plaintiff and mandatory injunction directing him to remove new constructions if any made; were also claimed.

3. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased by the 2nd plaintiff through a sale deed, dated 16-11-1981 (marked as Ex.A1) and that with her permission, her elder son, the defendant, was living therein. The 2nd plaintiff is stated to have executed through her GPA, a gift deed on 06-03-2000 (marked as Ex.A-2) in respect of the suit schedule property, in favour of the 1st plaintiff and that through another document, dated 18-03-1998, she gifted the vacant site of 121 sq.yds., to the defendant. During the lifetime of their father, the 1st plaintiff and the defendants are said to have partitioned all the joint family properties, except the family house and a site and that they were said to have been partitioned under a partition deed.

4. It was pleaded that the 2nd plaintiff, who was residing with the 1st plaintiff, an employee of the Central Government, went to Samalkot in the recent past, when the 1st plaintiff proceeded to Newzealand. It was alleged that when the defendant was proclaiming rights of ownership over the suit schedule property, the wife of the 1st plaintiff found from the Registrar’s office that a deed of revocation was executed by the 2nd plaintiff on 21-08-2000 (marked as Ex.A-3) cancelling the gift executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 06-03-2000, and that another gift deed, dated 13-10-2000 (marked as Ex.A-4) was executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the same property. Alleging that the defendant played fraud upon the 2nd plaintiff in procuring the documents Exs.A-3 and A-4, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations. He stated that the 2nd plaintiff never executed any gift deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff. He alleged that the 1st plaintiff got the GPA in favour of one of his employees from the 2nd plaintiff and Ex.A-2 was brought into existence through the said G.P.A. He pleaded that the 2nd plaintiff realised the fraud played upon her and on her own accord and free will executed a deed of cancellation (Ex.A-3) and a gift deed (Ex.A-4), in his favour. He further stated that the 1st plaintiff was never in possession of the property. He further pleaded that the 2nd plaintiff did not instruct any one to file a suit on her behalf and her signatures were forged at various documents, including the plaint. He raised an objection as to the maintainability of the suit.

6. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder, explaining certain facts stated in the written statement.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 07-02-1956. The defendant filed A.S.No.1 of 2006 in the court of the VII Additional District Munsif, Kakinada. The appeal was dismissed on 26-07-2000. Hence, this second appeal.

8. Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the defendant submits that alleged gift deed (Ex.A-2) in favour of the 1st plaintiff was not proved as required under law, particularly when the 2nd plaintiff (PW-1) the executant thereof, stated that she did not