IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a valid gift deed passes a title in favor of the donees, and subsequent deeds or Wills may be invalid if not proven.

JUDGMENT

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. - The judgment, dtd. 20/4/2012, in Appeal Suit No.31 of 2010, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (for short, 'the learned Senior Civil Judge') is under challenge in this Second Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant.

2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in Original Suit No.267 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (for short, 'the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge'), who filed the Suit with a prayer to declare that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the Suit of the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful plaintiff, in the above said Suit, filed the aforesaid Appeal before the appellate Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge set-aside the judgment of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge in O.S. No.267 of 2006 thereby decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and directed the defendant to deliver possession of the suit schedule property by 30/6/2012. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful respondent/defendant therein approached this Court by way of this Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S. No.267 of 2006, is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Bejjam Marthamma alias Ademma, wife of Seshaiah. She executed a gift deed on 13/8/1982 bearing document No.2111/82 in favour of Devarapalli Yesudasu and Devarapalli Mary Bharathi, both being minors, represented by their guardian Turaka Victor Paul. One Nagamma is no other than Bejjam Marthamma's sister's daughter. Nagamma had two issues by name Devarapalli Thomas and Gnanasundari. Devarapalli Thomas was blessed with three issues namely Devarapalli Yesudasu alias Ramesh, Devarapalli Mary Bharathi and Devarapalli Mary Jayanthi alias Masimma. Out of them, Devarapalli Mary Bharathi died during her minority and Devarapalli Yesudasu alias Ramesh died on 26/1/2000. Therefore, the plaintiff Devarapalli Masimma alias Jayanthi is the person who succeeded to the estate of her brother Devarapalli Yesu Dasu alias Ramesh, who died intestate. The parents of the plaintiff also died.

5. As per the gift deed, dtd. 13/8/1982, the property devolved upon Devarapalli Yesudasu alias Ramesh and Mary Bharathi is in an extent of Ac.1.33 cents. Subsequently, said Marthamma alias Ademma executed a gift deed on 9/3/1996 bequeathing an extent of Ac.0.66 1/2 cents to Bejjam Sitamma, wife of Sanjeetha Rao without cancelling the earlier gift deed, dtd. 13/8/1982. The recitals in the gift deed, dtd. 9/3/1996, reveal that as the property given to Devarapalli Mary Bharathi, as per the document No.2111/82, died during her minority, the said property was reverted back to Bejjam Marthamma alias Ademma, as such she executed half share in the plaint schedule property to Bejjam Sitamma. In fact, even though Devarapalli Mary Bharathi died during her minority, she has got legal heirs to succeed to her estate and they are no other than her sister Mary Jayanthi alias Masimma and brother Devarapalli Yesudasu. The claim of the defendant that she got the property by means of gift deed, dtd. 13/7/2001, has no bearing. Plaintiff along with her grandmother Nagamma is cultivating the land. Defendant by creating some false, fake and forged documents and with brutal force got the plaint schedule property and dispossessed the plaintiff. The defendant also filed Injunction Suit against Devarapalli Nagamma in O.S. No.454 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The gift deed, dtd. 13/8/1982, was not cancelled by any competent Court of law as such still i