A conditional gift reverts to the donor or their legal representatives upon breach of specified conditions, and the suit for cancellation is governed by Article 66 of the Limitation Act, allowing 12 years from the date of breach.

JUDGMENT :

(V. 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 challenging the decree and judgment, dated 16.01.2003 in O.S.No.89 of 1994 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur [for short 'the trial Court'].

2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the defendants in O.S.No.89 of 1994. It is to be noted here during the pendency of the appeal, the 1^st appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record as appellant Nos.3 and 4.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the gift deed, dated 04.10.1968 and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and also remove the unauthorized encroachments therein.

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

5. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S.No.89 of 1994, are as under: The suit schedule property was gifted in favour of the 2^nd defendant/Panchayat for the purpose of constructing a bus stand. The gift is a conditional gift which by non-fulfillment of the conditions adumbrated therein stands cancelled and the property gifted reverts to the donor and his heirs. The plaintiffs have called upon the defendants to surrender the schedule mentioned property as per the notice, dated 14.06.1992 and on 25.09.1992. The 1^st defendant did not reply. The 2^nd defendant gave notice contending that 2^nd defendant is entitled to a clear two months notice under Section 144 of the A.P.G.P. Act and that the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and direct the defendants to remove the unauthorized encroachments in the suit site.

6. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant is as follows:

The father of plaintiffs by name Late Raja Velugoti Sarvanga Kumara Krishna Yachandra gifted the plaint schedule site in favour of Venkatagiri Gram Pancyayat under a registered document bearing No.987/68, dated 04.10.1968 for the purpose of providing bus stand, tea stalls and shelter in that place. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat taken possession and constructed shelter in the plaint schedule site for the benefit of the passengers. The Panchayat also installed a bore-well in the said site for drinking water purpose to the passengers. The Panchayat also constructed urinals and latrines on the eastern side of the plaint schedule site for the benefit of the passengers. The Panchayat is taking necessary steps for evicting the unauthorized encroachers. When the government proposed to construct RTC bus stand near Chevireddypalli Village at a distance of 3 kms from Venkatagiri, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution vide PR.No.265, dated 30.09.1886 for the construction of river side elementary school building in the plaint schedule site on the ground that the plaint schedule site may not be used for bus stand purpose. The 1^st plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.55 of 1987, on the file of District Munsif, Venkatagiri for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to construct a school building in the suit schedule site. The District Munsif also granted temporary injunction to the same effect till the disposal of the said suit. Finally, the said suit was decreed on 31.12.1990 restraining the defendants from constructing a school building in the schedule mentioned site. Therefore, the construction of the school building was stopped. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution, dated 20.10.1994 cancelling the previous resolution, dated 30.09.1986. The government provided a by-pass road from Bangarupet to Venkatagiri town for the convenience of the passengers. The plaint schedule site is being used continuously for the bus stand purpose only.

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

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of the gift deed, dated 04.