IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of the registered gift settlement deed dated 27.03.1984 and declared the cancellation deed executed on 24.07.1995 as invalid and ineffective. The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery of possession of the property and found no need to interfere with the trial Court's decree and judgment.

JUDGMENT

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. - This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 28.04.2006, in O.S. No.34 of 2000 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration that the cancellation deed dated 24.07.1995 is invalid and has no legal effect in view of the gift deed dated 27.03.1984 and for consequential relief of possession of the plaint schedule property, for past mesne profits of Rs. 8,000/- at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per annum for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 and for future mesne profits over the plaint schedule property.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.34 of 2000, are as under:

The plaintiff's mother's brother by name Kasani Venkata Subbaiah, who was the owner of the plaint schedule property, executed a gift deed in respect of plaint schedule property on 27.03.1984, (an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated in S.No.223 of Vadlamudi village) out of love and affection in favour of the plaintiff with absolute rights, where under he conveyed vested remainder rights to him reserving life interest for himself (Kasani Venkata Subbaiah), that the gift deed was delivered to him and the gift deed was accepted and acted upon though the delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property was postponed till the death of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah, that after the death of Venkata Subbaiah on 04.08.1998, he came to know that Kasani Venkata Subbaiah without any manner of right, executed a document styled as 'gift cancellation deed' on 24.07.1995 as per the original of Ex.A2, that when he tried to occupy the plaint schedule property after the demise of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah, the defendants prevented him from taking possession of the schedule property and that thereafter, he got issued legal notices to the defendants 1 to 5 and filed the suit.

5. The defendants 1 to 5 filed common written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

Kasani Venkata Subbaiah is their senior paternal grand father, that the plaintiff obtained the above alleged gift deed from Kasani Venkata Subbaiah by playing fraud, and thereafter Kasani Venkata Subbaiah came to know in the year 1995, about the fraud played by the plaintiff upon him and executed a document on 24.07.1995 cancelling the alleged gift deed and thereafter executed a registered will dated 05.06.1996 bequeathing the written statement A schedule property to the defendants 1 to 3 and B schedule property to the defendants 4 and 5 and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against them and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether late Kasani Venkata Subbaiah bequeathed A schedule property in favour of D1 to D3 and B schedule property in favour of D4 and D5 as mentioned in the written statement under a registered will dated 05.06.1996 with absolute rights?

(ii) Whether the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property of Kasani Venkata Subbaiah on 04.08.1998, in pursuance of the will said to have been executed by late Venkata Subbaiah?

(iii) Whether the gift deed dated 27.03.1984 said to have been executed by late Kasani Venkata Subbaiah in favour of plaintiff conveying the plaint schedule property is true and correct?

(iv) Whether the cancellation of the gift deed by late Kasani Venkata Subbaiah on 24.07.1995 is invalid and ineffective?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the past profits of Rs. 8,000/- for two years (i.e., at Rs. 4,000/- per acre per