L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J : - This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in OS No.2 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Siddipet.

2. The sole appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives are brought on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The 1st defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The suit was filed for the relief of cancellation of gift dated 30.11.1991 executed by the plaintiff in relation to Acs.23.22 guntas, and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property of about 31 acres.

5. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the only son of Smt. Narra Rangamma and she died in the year 1989 leaving behind an extent of Acs.31-05 guntas of land in different survey numbers. The plaintiff has a son by name Narra Srinivas Reddy and a daughter by name Smt. Narsamma; and his son Srinivas Reddy married to the Ist defendant. The couple have a son i.e., the 2nd defendant. It was pleaded that the relationship between Srinivas Reddy and the 1st defendant were not cordial particularly after the birth of the 2nd defendant and from about 1995, the 1st defendant was living separately from her husband duly receiving maintenance from him. The plaintiff further pleaded that the 1st defendant and her brother brought some unsocial and goonda elements to him and by exerting coercion, obtained the gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. It was also pleaded that to give a semblance of genuinity to the transaction, the 1st defendant executed an agreement on 30.11.1991 undertaking not to alienate the property that was subject-matter of the gift deed. It was pleaded that there was no legality for the gift and the suit was filed before any acceptance by the donee. It was ultimately pleaded that the gift deed is tainted with the factors like coercion, threat and undue influence.

6. The plaintiff pleaded that he continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property and he referred to the pahanies that were issued for the period subsequent to execution of the gift deed. It was alleged that the 1st defendant tried to interfere with his possession and thereby it became necessary to seek the relief of perpetual injunction.

7. On behalf of the defendants, a counter-affidavit is filed. It was pleaded that the allegations in the plaint as to desertion on the part of the 1st defendant are not true and that she did not leave the matrimonial home at any point of time. It was pleaded that the gift deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of his grandson, the 2nd defendant, out of love and affection and that the daughter of the plaintiff is behind the filing of the suit. The allegation as to bringing of unsocial elements to compel the plaintiff to execute the gift deed is denied. The defendants further pleaded that possession of item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties were delivered on 30.11.1991 itself and ever since then, they are in possession of the same. They have also asserted that the daughter of the plaintiff by name Smt. Narsamma deserted her husband and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is an old man suffering from leprosy and his son i.e., husband of the 1st defendant is a deaf and dumb person, she gained control over the family and got filed the suit. It was also alleged that attempts were made to snatch away the Mangalasuthram from the 1st defendant and to push her in a well on 28.11.1991, and that she was rescued by the neighbours. Reference was made to OS No.99 of 1992 filed in the Court of District Munsiff, Siddipet by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the relief of injunction.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 5.3.1997. Hence this appeal.

9. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff (appellant), submi