JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 12.07.2018, passed in O.S. No. 219 of 2012 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

2. Heard Sri T. Vishnu Teja, learned counsel representing Ms. Jami Madhavi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri A. Sai Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The notices sent to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been returned un-served with an endorsement ‘refused’ and thus, there is no appearance on their behalf.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaint schedule property, viz. wet land of Ac. 0.34 cents in R.S. No. 231/3 of Bhimavaram municipal area, is the self acquired property of late Kamatam Isaku, who is the father of Isreal Raju and the said person, out of love and affection executed a settlement deed in favour of the said Isreal Raju, resident of Kovvada, Bhimavaram Mandal. As per the recitals of the settlement deed, dated 21.04.2004, the said Isreal Raju is the only son of the executants, and as such, the schedule property worth Rs. 72,000/- was given to the said Isreal Raju and possession of the property was also handed over on the date of the execution of the document. It is further recited in the said deed that the schedule property was not alienated to any other person and that in case of any dispute; the same shall be solved by the executant. From the date of the execution of the aforesaid document, Isreal Raju has been in possession and occupation of the schedule property with absolute right with knowledge of adjacent farmers, including the defendants 1 to 3. Isreal Raju, after enjoying the property for some time, sold away the schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 17,00,000/- and executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 25.04.2012. It is clearly recited in the said document, dated 25.04.2012, that the schedule property is not fetching any income and possession of the property was delivered on the date of execution of the document itself. Thus, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute rights from the date of execution of the sale deed, dated 25.04.2012.

(b) While so, as the plaintiffs are staying away from the schedule property, the defendants hatched a plan to grab the property one way or the other and as such, the 1st defendant who is the sister of Isreal Raju, started causing hindrance wrongly claiming that she has right in the schedule property. The 2nd defendant is the cousin of the father of the plaintiffs’ vendor and the 3rd defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. The defendants are threatening that they would occupy the property at any time. They also tried to enter the schedule property on one or two occasions. The plaintiffs, apprehending danger to their person and property in the hands of the defendants, filed the suit for declaration that the vendor of the plaintiffs is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and that the registered gift settlement deed, dated 21.04.2004, executed by late Kamatam Isaku is binding on the defendant No. 1 and to pass a consequential injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 along with relations and friends, farm servant’s assignees to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and occupation of the schedule property in any way manner or in any manner.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the plaintiff (sic. PW-5) completely deserted and neglected his father and he used to abuse and scold him and thereby, the father of the 1st plaintiff (sic. PW-5 and 1st defendant) took shelter at the house of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant and her family members served her father with love and affection and provided medical treatment by spending huge amounts. As such, late Kamatam I