1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.285 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, is the appellant. She filed the suit against her brother, the defendant, for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property, a house constructed covering an area of 47.3 square yards in Tenali Town, described in the suit schedule, and for recovery of possession thereof. It was pleaded that the father of the appellant and the respondent had purchased an extent of 108.6 square yards through a document, dated 05.10.1968, and thereafter gifted an extent of 61.3 square yards to the respondent in the year 1985. As regards the suit schedule property, a sale deed, dated 10.07.1990, Ex.A.1, is said to have been executed in favour of the appellant. She further pleaded that in the suit schedule property, her parents were living, her father died in the year 1994 and mother died in June, 2005. She alleged that after the death of their mother, the respondent occupied the suit schedule premises, even while giving his own premises on lease. Notices were exchanged between the parties, before the suit was filed.

2. The respondent filed a written statement, opposing the suit. He admitted the relationship and certain facts, but denied the transfer of the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 18.03.2010. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed A.S.No.482 of 2010 in the Court of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 07.03.2012. Hence, this Second Appeal.

4. Ms. Kumari G.K.V.D., learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower appellate Court committed error in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court. She submits that Ex.A.1 is a registered document, and it stand proved with the filing thereof, and depositions of P.Ws.1 to 3. She contends that even when a specific question was put to the respondent who deposed as D.W.1, as to whether he intends to get Ex.A.1 examined by handwriting expert, he gave answer in the negative. She further submits that the respondent admitted that he did not even see Ex.A.1, and still, the plea that Ex.A.1 was forged, was accepted by the lower appellate Court and certain findings, which are contrary to the settled principles of law, were recorded.

5. Sri N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though Ex.A.1 was filed by the appellant, the burden squarely rests upon her to prove it and the lower appellate Court has pointed out cogent reasons, as to how the document cannot be treated proved. He submits that though the suit schedule property is said to have been purchased in the year 1990, the appellant was never in possession thereof, nor any mutations were effected in her favour in the revenue records.

6. As observed at the threshold, the suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The respondent is none other than the brother of the appellant. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

Whether the plaintiff has got title to the plaint schedule property ?

Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession ?

Whether plaintiff is entitled for past profits ?

7. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A8 were filed. The respondent deposed as DW-1 and no other witnesses were examined. He filed Exs.B-1 to B-6, which are mostly demand notices. The suit was decreed and in the appeal, preferred by the respondent, the lower appellate Court framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the plaintiff has been successful in proving the registered sale deed dated 10.07.1990 in her favour executed by her father?”

8. The basis for claiming title over the suit schedule property by the appellant, is Ex.A-1 Sale deed, dated 10.07.1990. In all fairness, the appellant admitted th