This Appeal Suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 23.04.1996, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, passed in O.S.No.78 of 1991.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and of Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Be it noted that during the pendency of this Appeal Suit, the respondents 2 & 3, who were formerly minors, were declared as majors vide order, dated 26.02.2018, in I.A.No.1 of 2018. I have perused the material record.

3. In this Appeal Suit, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as arrayed in the original suit, for convenience and clarity.

4. Since this is a first Appeal Suit and as this Court is the last Court of fact, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties.

5. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows: -

‘The plaintiff is one of the sisters of the 1st defendant. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are the undivided sons of the 1st defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 constitute a joint Hindu family. Late Parise Venkata Kotaiah and late Lakshmi Kantamma are the parents of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. They are having sons other than the 1st defendant and daughters other than the sole plaintiff. Lakshmi Kantamma had stridhana properties. The plaint schedule property viz., item no.1 admeasuring Ac.4.01 cents in R.S.Nos.533/3; and, item no.2 admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents in R.S.No.602 of Cheemalapadu Village, Hamlet of Ramachandrapuram in A.Konduru Mandal of Krishna District, are part of her stridhana properties. Out of the afore-said two items, the first item is a dry land and the second item is a Mango garden. Parise Venkata Kotaiah predeceased his wife Lakshmi Kantamma. There was a partition of the joint family properties between Venkata Kotaiah and his sons many years back. Each sharer has been enjoying his share of properties exclusively in his own right. Lakshmi Kantamma, after the death of her husband Venkata Kotaiah, has been mostly residing with her daughters and for some times with her sons at different places as per her wishes. She had considerable properties both movable and immovable and she was fully replenishing her wants from the income she was getting from her properties. Her daughters were treating her with great love and affection and serving her and looking after her needs while she was living with each of her daughters. The mother was also having abundant love and affection towards her daughters and she was more intimate and free with her daughters than her daughters-in-law. During her life time and old age, she was never in need of any money or female help. In the year 1980, Lakshmi Kantamma was living with the plaintiff. At that time, when she fell sick, the plaintiff served her with all daughterly affection. Lakshmi Kantamma was a diabetic. Plaintiff temporarily set up her residence at Machilipatnam for getting her mother treated by a doctor she desired. While so, Lakshmi Kantamma expressed her desire of vesting limited rights of enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff, however, reserving life estate with her. Accordingly, she executed a registered deed of gift, dated 10.04.1980, in favour of the plaintiff reserving to herself right of enjoyment during her life time. The plaintiff accepted the said gift and the donor/mother of the plaintiff delivered the deed of gift to the plaintiff. The corresponding earlier documents of title relating to the plaint schedule items were also given to the plaintiff. Lakshmi Kanthamma died, on 07.04.1991. Thereafter, the plaintiff became the absolute owner and person entitled to possession of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant, who is residing at Ramachandrapuram village, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is residing at Vijayawada,