L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

These two appeals are between the same parties in relation to the same item of property. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in C.C.C.A.No.2 of 2007.

The 2nd respondent is the mother of the appellant and the 1st respondent. The appellant filed O.S.No.191 of 2003 in the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for cancellation of gift settlement deed, dated 20.01.2003, executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent, transferee of the suit schedule property - a house constructed in an area of 171 square yards situated at Kachiguda, Hyderabad, and for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from dispossessing the appellant. The 2nd respondent, in turn, filed O.S.No.2875 of 2004 in the same Court, against the appellant, for the relief of recovery of possession of that very property and for damages of Rs.60,000/-for use and occupation of the said premises.

The appellant stated that their father died when himself and the 2nd respondent were at very young age, and he learnt the skills of turner on lathe machine, and started working in a private firm at relatively younger age. He stated that he obtained the licence to drive light motor vehicles, whereas the 2nd respondent passed S.S.C., and thereafter went to Dubai. The family is said to be the tenants in respect of the suit schedule property owned by Mr.Panjala Yadaiah. The appellant pleaded that himself and the 2nd respondent contributed equal amounts, and purchased the same in January, 1993 and the sale deed was obtained in the name of their mother, the 1st respondent. According to him, the 2nd respondent was not even in India, when the sale deed was executed.

The further case of the appellant is that the old house that was existed in the premises was demolished and contribution was made by himself and the 2nd respondent for construction of a new house with ground and first floors, after obtaining permission of the Municipal Corporation and that he is residing with his family in the ground floor. It was also stated that the appellant got married in August, 1997, soon after the new house was constructed, whereas the 2nd respondent got married in the year 2000.

It was pleaded that the appellant has also gone to Dubai for working and when he returned to India in March, 2003, his mother-1st respondent asked him to vacate the premises and shift to a rented house and three months thereafter, he received a notice from the 2nd respondent requiring him to vacate the premises. On verification, he is said to have come to know that the 1st respondent executed the gift deed, dated 20.01.2003 in favour of the 2nd respondent and on that basis, the 2nd respondent was requiring him to vacate the premises.

Stating, inter alia, that the property was owned jointly by himself and the 2nd respondent and that the 1st respondent has no right to execute the gift deed in favour of the 2nd respondent, the plaintiff prayed for the relief of cancellation of the gift deed and for the relief of perpetual injunction.

Written statement in the suit was filed by the 1st respondent i.e. mother. She stated that the house was, in fact, purchased by her second son - 2nd respondent, and it is only out of love and affection towards her, that the sale deed was executed in her favour. It is also pleaded that the appellant was not work minded and the 2nd respondent, arranged for his employment abroad, and despite that, the appellant used to come back to India frequently. She stated that the house was purchased at a time when the 2nd respondent was in abroad, and the new house was constructed with the money sent by him. She further stated that though the appellant supervised the construction, he was paid salary of Rs.10,000/-, per month. According to her, the gift deed was executed by her out of free will a