This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments rendered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, in O.S.No.27 of 1990 and the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in A.S.No.59 of 1999.

2. The deceased-1st respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Ac.1.55 cents of land in R.S.No.72/1 in patta No.628 of Chiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District, against the mother of the appellant herein by name, Kosuri Nagamanikyamma, shown as the deceased-7th respondent, and respondents 8 and 9. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole plaintiff died and respondents 2 to 6 herein are added as his legal representatives. The 1st defendant, i.e. Kosuri Nagamanikyamma died during the pendency of the appeal, and the appellant herein and respondent No.2 are brought on record as her legal representatives.

3. Henceforth, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff was that one Sri Kosuri Rathaiah had two sons and two daughters and that the father of the plaintiff, by name, Babu Rao was brought in illutum in the year 1930. It was stated that at the time of marriage of Babu Rao with one of the daughters of Rathaiah, the suit schedule property was given as gift or katnam, as per the prevailing customs, and since no document was executed at the time of marriage, Rathaiah executed a gift deed dated 17-07-1957 in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The 1st defendant is the widow of one of the sons of Rathaiah. The plaintiff pleaded that Rathaiah settled substantial extent of property upon the 1st defendant, and that she has disposed of the said properties. He alleged that the 1st defendant created interest in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 2 and 3, with an objective of grabbing the same.

6. Initially, the suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Later on, by filing I.A.No.1560 of 1997, the plain was amended to incorporate the relief of recovery of possession.

7. The 1st defendant filed a written-statement, opposing the suit. According to her, the gift deed, even if executed by Rathaiah was not acted upon and it does not confer any title upon the plaintiff. Plea of adverse possession was also raised. She has also filed a counter-claim for declaration of title in her and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, in her favour.

8. The defendants 2 and 3 filed written-statement, stating that they are the lessees of the suit schedule property and that the 1st defendant had entered into agreement to sell parts of the suit schedule property in favour of the father of the 2nd defendant and wife of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff filed written-statement to the counter-claim made by the 1st defendant.

9. The trial Court decreed the suit and dismissed the counter-claim, through judgment dated 04-03-1999. The defendants filed A.S.No.59 of 1999 in the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Krishna, at Machilipatnam. The appeal was dismissed on 26-12-2009. Hence, this Second Appeal by one of the four legal representatives of the 1st defendant (for short ‘the 1st defendant’).

10. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the 1st defendant submits that the trial Court and lower Appellate Court have committed errors of law in decreeing the suit and rejecting the counter-claim. He contends that the very fact that the suit was filed in the year 1990 for declaration of title, based upon a gift deed of the year 1957 discloses that it was hopelessly barred by limitation. He contends that the 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property for the past several decades, after it was settled upon her, orally by late Kosuri Rathaiah. He submits that the observations made by the trial Court and lower Appellate Court in relation to the cist receipts are contrary to record. Learned counsel submit