The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and the language used in documents in determining their legal nature, and the application of adverse possession in property disputes.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sixth share of the properties alleged to have been left by her maternal grandmother one Chinna Sub-bamma. The said Chinna Subbamma was the daughter of one I. Veeravadhanulu. The properties in suit are described in Schedules A and B to the plaint. The basis o the plaintiffs claim is that under a deed Ex. A dated 2nd October 1887, the said Veeravadhanulu gifted the said properties absolutely to his daughter, the said Chinna Subbamma, that Chinna Subbamma had two daughters, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5, and the mother of defendants 2 and 3, and both the daughters predeceased her, that Chinna Subbamma. died in 1922, that on her death the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, as the daughters, daughters of the said Ghinna Subbamma; have become entitled to the said property and that the plaintiff is entitled to a one-sixth share therein being a third of the half-shares which the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 would get in right of their mother, defendants 2 and 3 being entitled to the remaining half-share. It was alleged in the plaint that defendant 1, who is the son of the said Chinna Subbamma, wrongfully possessed himself of the said property and declined to surrender possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs suit is to recover possession of her one-sixth share. In addition to defendant 1, she impleaded defendants 2 to 5 and incidentally prayed that a partition may be effected for the purpose of giving her the one-sixth share. The plaint was valued on the basis of one-sixth share and a claim for mesne profits as appertaining to that share. Defendant 1 resisted the suit on the ground that in respect of the B schedule property Chinna Subbamma had no right because it was gifted to him by his grandfather Veeravadhanulu under a deed of gift Ex. 9 dated 7th October 1887, that ever since the date of the gift he has been in enjoyment and possession thereof and assuming that the deed of gift would not confer any title on him, he has acquired title thereto by adverse possession. He further pleaded that Chinna Subbamma before her death left a will in and by which she bequeathed all the property she died possessed of to him, and that if the B schedule properties were to be properties which she must be deemed to have got from her father both sets of properties would pass to him under the will and neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 to 5 would have any manner of right thereto. He also set up title to the A schedule property by adverse possession. Defendants 2 to 5 supported the plaintiffs case and prayed that in case the plaintiff succeeded they may also be given their shares in the property on the payment of the necessary court-fee.

2. Several questions fell to be decided in the pleadings between the parties. In regard to Schedule A property the title of Chinna Subbamma was undisputed and the only question was whether she left a will. In regard to the Schedule B properties there was the further question whether the deed of gift in favour of defendant 1 was operative. The contention of the plaintiff in regard thereto was that under the document Ex. A, dated 2nd October 1887, even the B schedule property was gifted away and the deed of gift, Ex. 9 dated 7th October 1887, under which defendant 1 claimed, was later in date and therefore any gift thereunder could not prevail over the earlier gift and defendant 1 acquired no title thereunder. On the other hand, the contention of defendant 1 is that Ex. A was not a deed of gift but only a will and it was competent to Yeeravadhanulu to revoke any disposition therein and he effectually did so by means of a deed dated 7th October 1887. The question for decision in regard to the B schedule properties is whether the document Ex. A is a deed of gift or a will, because if it is a will, Ex. 9 would be a valid and operative document and if Ex. A is a deed of gift, it i