Plaintiff - Smt. Kirala Venkatamma in O.S. No.327 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puttur, who succeeded, lost in Appeal Suit No.14 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Puttur and, thus, she preferred the present Second Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short Code).

2. She filed the suit in O.S. No.327 of 1984 for declaration of her right and title to the suit schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction to restrain defendant Nos.1 to 5 therein from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

3. The suit schedule property consists of item Nos.1 and 2. Item No.1 is dry land to an extent of Ac.0-49 cents out of Acs.1.66 cents situated in Survey No.173/1 with right in the Well in Survey No.173/6 to which Well a pump set is installed and the right of 1/12th share in the Well and appurtenance therein, the Channels, trees etc., and item No.2 is a house site measuring east - west 25yards and north - south 20 yards within specific boundaries.

4. During pendency of the present second appeal, the sole appellant died and her brothers daughter came on record as appellant No.2 being her legal representative. Respondent No.2 also died and his legal representatives are already on record as other respondents.

5. Appellant No.1 herein is plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, while respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the defendants.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the aforesaid suit.

7. O.S. No.327 of 1984 was filed for the aforesaid reliefs by the deceased plaintiff - Kirala Venkatamma. Her case had been that defendant No.2 was her brother. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are his sons. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are wives of defendant Nos.1 and 3 respectively, and all of them were living together.

(i) Originally the suit schedule property belonged to husband of the plaintiff, Kirala Narasaiah, and after his demise, she succeeded by way of inheritance to the suit property as they were issueless.

(ii) On 19.12.1969, she executed a document terming it as settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1, who was minor then under the guardianship of his father, defendant No.2, stipulating therein that she should possess and enjoy the plaint schedule properties until her life time, and that defendant Nos.1 and 2 should treat her properly and, thereafter, defendant No.1 would derive absolute rights in case he performs her obsequies.

(iii) But, subsequent to the execution of the said deed, it is alleged that she was ill-treated by the defendants and, therefore, by execution of a registered deed, dated 21.01.1971, she had cancelled the earlier deed. According to her case, she did not deliver the possession to the beneficiary under the former deed and she had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and, therefore, she sought the aforesaid reliefs.

8. Before the trial Court, defendant No.1 filed written statement and defendant Nos.2 and 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.3 and 5 remained ex parte.

(i) They admitted the relationship and execution of the registered deed of 1969, but, they claimed that the possession was delivered by her. They admit that the plaintiff cancelled the settlement deed, but they state that they gained knowledge about the execution of that deed a week prior to 25.04.1975, the date on which a letter was executed by the plaintiff.

(ii) They claimed that the plaintiff had no right to cancel the settlement deed. They admit that though, defendant No.1 was not put in possession of the suit schedule properties on the date of settlement deed, but subsequently the plaintiff had delivered the possession of suit schedule properties to him as evidenced by the letter, dated 25.04.1975. Further allegations were denied stating that though, cist was paid, but the amount was actually paid on his (defendant No.1) behalf.

(iii) They state