1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the unsuccessful appellant/plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.2 of 1985, which was dismissed on 30.06.1997 by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddapah.

2. The suit was filed by one K. Obanna for a declaration of his right and title to the plaint C-schedule property and other reliefs.

3. The suit was initially filed against one B. Abraham and Smt. B. Santhamma. The averments of the plaint are that B. Santhamma, second defendant and her mother purchased the A-schedule site by sale deed dated 25.03.1965. The mother relinquished her share in favour of the second defendant, vide a registered deed dated 03.02.1969. Thus, the second defendant became the owner of the entire property, which is described as B-schedule property. Thereafter, in 1984 after the property was developed, the second defendant gifted B-schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the brother of the second defendant. The second defendant also executed a rectification deed to correct an error in the said gift deed. This property is the C-schedule property of the plaint. As per the plaint, the husband of the second defendant viz., the first defendant and his children have been proclaiming their interest to claim title over the property. The plaintiff also states that after he got the tenants vacated, the first defendant and his sons trespassed into the property and have occupied the same. The second defendant also changed her stand and is residing with the first defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title over the C-schedule property and for other reliefs.

4. The contesting first defendant states that the first sale deed of 1965 was nominally taken by him in the name of his mother and his wife-second defendant. He states that he developed the property, constructed the house with loans, contributions etc., as are described in para-4 of the written statement. He states that his wife-second defendant was coaxed second defendant into giving the property by gift, vide deed dated 08.05.1984. The second defendant remained ex parte. The defendants 3 to 6, who are added as the legal representatives, adopted in the written statement filed by their father.

5. The matter went to trial and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked for the plaintiff. Exs.B.1 to B.13 were marked for the defendants. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1. The third defendant was examined as DW.1 and another witness was examined as DW.2. After hearing, the lower Court by its order dated 30.06.1997 dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Heard Sri V.B. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellant/Legal Representatives of the plaintiff and Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

7. The first and foremost point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the gift deed-Ex.A.3 dated 08.05.1984 is a genuine document or not. Basing on this point, the other points would follow. As narrated in the plaint and as can be seen from the documents; initially, the site was purchased by the second defendant and her mother, through Ex.A.1-registered sale deed 25.03.1965. The mother relinquished her half share in favour of her daughter/second defendant on 03.02.1969 (Ex.A.2). On 08.05.1984 i.e., after about 15 years, the second defendant executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff (Ex.A.3). She also executed a rectification deed on 15.06.1984, which is marked as Ex.A.4. The contention of the plaintiff is that Ex.A.3- document is executed out of love and affection that his sister had towards him. Therefore, he also states that he has obtained title to the property.

8. In reply to this, the defendants state that the property was originally procured by the first defendant with his funds, but as he was in the government service working as head constable, he obtained the sale deed in the name of his wife and his mother-in-law. The first defendant states that the second def