A gift deed is valid if it is executed voluntarily and without consideration by the donor and accepted by the donee during the lifetime of the donor.

JUDGMENT :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 71 of 2015 dated 25.06.2018 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District Judge, Guntur, at Tenali. It was in turn preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 44 of 2011 dated 16.09.2015 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

2. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is the respondent.

3. Smt. Gogineni Rayamma is the mother of the appellant. Smt. Paturi Nirmala was the daughter of Smt. Gogineni Rayamma. She died about 23 years prior to the institution of the suit. The respondent is her only daughter. Thus, she is the grand-daughter of Smt. Gogineni Rayamma and the niece of the appellant. The respondent was brought up by Smt. Gogineni Rayamma from the time her mother passed away and when she was 1½ years old. Smt. Gogineni Rayamma performed her marriage also. Sri Suneel (P.W.2) is the husband of the respondent. While Smt. Gogineni Rayamma and the appellant have been the residents of Pedaravuru village of Tenali Revenue Mandal, the respondent and her husband have been residing at Gudivada of Tenali Revenue Mandal.

4. Smt. Gogineni Rayamma was the owner and title holder of items 1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties. Item-1 is a R.C.C. building in an open site of 217-8-1 square yards in Door Number 352/2 of Pedaravuru village. Item-2 of plaint schedule is an open site of 170.2 square yards at Pedaravuru village. While item-3 is Ac.0.46 cents of wet land in D. No. 72/B of Pedaravuru village. These properties shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the suit properties' for convenience.

5. It is the case of the respondent that Smt. Gogineni Rayamma gifted away the suit properties to her under a registered gift deed dated 09.06.2010 out of love and affection, free will and voluntarily in her favour conferring absolute rights, that this gift was acted upon and that Smt. Gogineni Rayamma had delivered possession of these suit properties to her on the same day. Thus, according to the respondent, she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of these properties till she was dispossessed by the appellant therefrom.

6. It is the further case of the respondent that on behalf of Smt. Gogineni Rayamma, a registered notice dated 21.08.2020 was issued purportedly from the office of Sri Gaddipati Rambabu, advocate, Tenali, alleging that she had revoked the afore stated gift deed by a registered revocation deed dated 28.10.2010 on the premise that it was obtained from her, playing fraud and that on the same day, Smt. Gogineni Rayamma had executed a registered gift deed in favour of the appellant conferring the suit properties. These allegations are all false and concocted according to the respondent. She further claimed that she never played any kind of fraud nor prevailed upon Smt. Gogineni Rayamma in getting the suit properties gifted in her favour and hence, she got issued a reply to the above notice through her advocate. It is the further case of the respondent that the appellant prevailed upon Smt. Gogineni Rayamma to get the revocation deed as well as the gift deed executed on 20.08.2010, having had developed grudge against her. She further alleged that on 28.11.2010, the appellant had got the standing paddy crop harvested from item No. 3 of the suit properties, though the crop was raised by her highhandedly and illegally and also occupied items 1 and 2 of the suit properties highhandedly without any manner of right. Her further case is that her attempts to present complaints to the police and the Tahsildar, Tenali, did not yield any result and since the wife of the appellant was then MPTC of their place on account of such influence, items 1 and 2 of the suit properties could not be mutated in her favour nor she could pay property tax therefor.

7. Therefore, in the above circumstances, according to the respondent, she was constrained to lay the suit against the appellant. The