This appeal arises out of the decree and judgment dated 31.12.1998 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in OS Na.79 of 1995.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit far declaration of her title to the plaint "A, B, C and D" site, far recovery of possession of the said property by evicting the defendants therefrom. The learned trial Court decreed the suit with casts, feeling aggrieved the first defendant filed the instant appeal.

3. I have heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing far the appellant and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel appearing far the respondents.

4. For the convenience sake, I would like to refer the parties as 'the plaintiff and the defendants'.

5. The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is like this:

The plaintiff is the wife of late Narayana Rao and defendants 1 and 2 are her sans. The plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of late Narayana Rao, who became sick while in service and he executed a registered settlement deed in respect of the plaint schedule property an 17.9.1979 in favaur of his sans, defendants 1 and 2 thinking that the defendants would look-after him properly in his aid-age. Subsequently, as the defendants failed to discharge their obligations towards their father as per the terms of the settlement deed, late Narayana Rao revoked the settlement deed an 21.8.1981 by means of a registered revocation deed. According to the plaintiff, even-after the settlement deed was executed, the property covered by the settlement deed was not put in possession of the donees i.e., the defendants and the settlement deed was only a nominal document. After the revocation deed, late Narayana Rao was paying the property tax of the house in the schedule property by getting his name recorded in the municipal records. Subsequent to the revocation of settlement deed, late Narayana Rao executed a registered Will on 9.12.1981 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing the plaint schedule property to her and after the death of late Narayana Rao, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property, but the defendants in March, 1990 encroached the "A, B, C and D" plaint schedule site belonging to the plaintiff by dispossessing her. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff states that she filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

6. The second defendant remained ex parte.

7. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement contending as under:

The plaint schedule property is not the self-acquired property of his father late Narayana Rao, but, if is the ancestral property of late Narayana Rao and defendants 1 and 2. There was a partition between late Narayana Rao and his brother Ramanaiah, while the defendants 1 and 2 were minors and the said partition was effected by a registered partition deed, dated 22.2.1961. In the said partition, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Narayana Rao and the defendants who are his minor sons and ever-since it became the joint family property of late Narayana Rao and defendants 1 and 2. As late Narayana Rao was only having 1/3rd share in the property which includes the plaint schedule property executed a registered settlement deed on 17.9.1970 in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 gifting away his 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property and other joint family properties the defendants 1 and 2 became absolute owner of the same. Since then, the defendants 1 and 2 were enjoying the properties jointly till they partitioned their properties in the year 1972 by executing a memory list on 12.7.1976. In the said partition, according to the first defendant, "A, B, C and D" site fell to his share and since then, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint "A, B, C and D" site.

8. It is contended by the defendant No.1 in the written statement that late Narayana Rao has no right to revoke the gift deed dated 17.9.19