Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid without specific grounds for revocation under law, reaffirming 'possession follows title'.

JUDGMENT :

B. SYAMSUNDER, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 319 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri are the appellants. The 3rd appellant/3rd defendant died during the pendency of the appeal, due to that the appellant Nos. 6 and 7 are added as her legal representatives. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the respondent against the appellants, seeking declaration that Ex.A2/ Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 said to have been executed by her mother Smt. Seetharavamma is not valid and legal, which not binding on her and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.03½ cents, out of Ac. 2.83 cents in D. No. 110/E3 within the specific boundaries, situated at Rayapudi village.

2. The appellants and the respondent hereinafter referred to as defendants and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against defendants for declaration that Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 said to be executed by her mother Smt. Seetharavamma is not valid and it does not bind on her and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are her brothers and the 3rd defendant is her sister-in-law and parties are inter related. The plaintiff submits that one Smt. Moturi Seetharavamma is her mother who is the original owner of the plaint schedule property, who acquired the same under registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976 and said Smt. Seetharavamma resided in her house for a period of more than 20 years upto November, 2003 and the plaintiff used to look after her welfare with utmost love and affection. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants never care to look after the needs of their mother Smt. Seetharavamma, due to that Smt. Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed, dated 27.10.1998 in her favour in respect of the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of Ac. 1.03 ½ cents out of Ac. 2.83½ cents with lemon trees, keeping life interest with her and vested remainder to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s mother used to enjoy the usufructs by selling the lemon crop every year. Since the execution of the Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants bore grudge against the plaintiff’s mother and tried to disturb her possession and enjoyment, due to that the mother of the plaintiff also lodged a report before Thulluru Police Station. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were waiting for an opportunity to grab the plaint schedule property and also remaining extent of Ac. 1.83 cents of land under suit survey number, which belongs to Smt. Seetharavamma, in the first week of December, 2003 when Smt. Seetharavamma went to Rayapudi for selling the lemon usufructs, who fell sick, due to her ill-health and when the plaintiff tried to get back her mother, which is not allowed by the defendants, who died on 19.11.2004 at Rayapudi. The plaintiff submits that after the death of her mother as per Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed, dated 27.10.1998 she became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, but recently the defendants are proclaiming that Smt. Seetharavamma cancelled Registered Settlement Deed on 10.12.2003 by executing Registered Cancellation Deed, which is created by the defendants, taking advantage of ill-health of Smt. Seetharavamma. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Smt. Seetharavamma is signatory, but on Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, there are thumb impression marks, which itself shows that fraud and coercio