The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving ownership and the validity of property transactions through evidence. The Court emphasized the need for parties to substantiate their claims and discredited the defendants' contentions due to lack of proof.

JUDGMENT

Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. - This Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) is filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the suit. Defendant No.4 in the suit is shown as respondent No.2 and is shown as not a necessary party. The sole plaintiff is shown as respondent No.1.

2. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri J. Saraschandra Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted their arguments. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Nos.1 and 2 died. Their legal representatives have not been brought on record.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the cause of action survives and appellant No.3 is the very daughter of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and therefore appeal survives.

4. No contrary submission is made on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Property in dispute is an extent of 221 square yards of site with a RCC roof house on it bearing Door No.68010-27 in Ramanayyapeta Sivaru, Gaigolupadu Village, Kakinada Municipal Area, East Godavari District.

6. Smt. Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai, as an indigent person, filed O.S.No.91 of 2006 before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada seeking a declaration of her title over the above referred property which is well described in the plaint schedule and sought a direction as against defendant Nos.1 to 4 to vacate the property and deliver vacant property to her and also prayed for setting aside gift deed dated 06.05.2002 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4.

In the plaint she alleged that this property was owned by Smt. K. Nageswaramma and from her plaintiff purchased it for Rs. 47,300/- under a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1996. However, defendant No.2 impersonating herself as plaintiff executed a registered gift deed dated 06.05.2002 in favour of her two children/defendant Nos.3 and 4. The said gift deed is invalid as she had no right to alienate such property. On coming to know about such gift deed the plaintiff got executed a cancellation gift deed dated 28.05.2003. The further case set out in the plaint is that defendant No.1 was a Sub-Inspector of Police and retired from service and he had developed intimacy with the plaintiff and married her in 1989. They cohabited in this plaint schedule property till April, 2002. Defendant No.1 is husband of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of those spouses. Plaintiff was sent out of the house. It is in these circumstances the suit is filed for the prayers referred above.

7. Defendant No.4 did not enter the contest and remained ex parte before the trial Court. Defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 filed a written statement and defendant No.3 filed a memo adopting the same. Relationship among defendants is admitted. The intimacy and the marriage alleged in the plaint between plaintiff and defendant No.1 is denied as false. Plaintiff is the wife of Sri Kandikatla Dharmananda Mohana Rao and she had a daughter by name Nirupama and also a son. Plaintiff once met defendant No.1 and explained him about her miserable condition and out of compassion her daughter Nirupama was allowed to run a tailoring institute in the suit schedule property. Be it noted here, in the cause title of the suit the name of defendant No.2 is shown as Potla Alishamma. In the written statement of defendants, it is further stated that the original name of defendant No.2 is Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai and thereafter by virtue of conversion of religion of defendant No.1 who adopted the faith of Christianity, the name of his wife/defendant No.2 is changed as Alishamma. In the written statement it is specially pleaded that the plaint schedule property was purchased by defendant No.2 and thereafter she validly executed a gift deed in favour of her children. That the plaintiff never purchased the plaint schedule property. She had no capacity to purchase the said property and thereafter build a house thereon. Nirupama, the daughter of plaintiff, might have stolen