The court established that an oral gift requires clear proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession to be valid, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(M.G. Priyadarsini, J.)

1. The present appeal is directed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022 in O.S.No.88 of 2013 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgment') on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial Court'), whereby the suit of the plaintiff to declare him as owner of the suit schedule property and recovery of possession, was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the defendants to file the present appeal are that the sole plaintiff filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect the suit schedule property against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:

a) The father of the plaintiff and father of defendant No.1 are real brothers. The father of plaintiff was a Government Teacher and whereas the father of the defendant No.1 was a un-employee having no skill in any field. The father of the plaintiff purchased and extent of 540 square yards under registered sale deed bearing document No.585 of 1960 dated 16.09.1960 from the registered owner and constructed a house along with mulgies with two shutters on the said plot on the northern side abutting to Hyderabad Road. The municipal authorities have assessed the said house to tax and allotted house No.1-5-37. Since defendant No.1 had no employment, the father of the plaintiff used to look after the family of defendant No.1 also. The father of the plaintiff let out said mulgies to tenants, who used to do grocery business for some period and other tenants used to run hotel business. In the year 1972 the father of the defendant No.1 passed away, as such the father of the plaintiff permitted defendant No.1 and his mother, sisters to stay in the portion of the house behind said mulgies with separate mess. The said portion of the house and mulgies to an extent of 115.56 square yards (suit schedule property) is in possession of defendant No.1. In the year 1990 out of love and affection, the father of the plaintiff with an intention to give some work to defendant No.1, who was without work, permitted defendant No.1 to establish a hotel and flower business and accordingly the defendant No.1 was doing the same in the said mulgies.

b) In the year 2009 the father of the plaintiff passed away and thereafter defendant No.1 started acting adversely as such in the month of January, 2010 and March, 2010 the plaintiff demanded the defendant No.1 and his family members to vacate the suit schedule property but the defendant No.1 dodged the matter on lame excuses. In the meanwhile, defendant No.1 let out suit schedule property on monthly rent without any authority and interest to defendant Nos.3 and 4, who maintained a hotel in the name and style of "Ganesh Tiffin Centre" and also constructed a big furnace in Udipi style for said business due to which lot of heat is being produced. The residence of the plaintiff is becoming hot and they are unable to enjoy their property. Accordingly, the plaintiff approached the municipal authorities to take action against defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 but of no use, as such the plaintiff approached District Collector, who directed the municipal authorities to take action. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed O.S.No.39 of 2013 and obtained interim orders against plaintiff and defendant No.1 vide I.a.No.146 of 2013 and the said interim order was made absolute on 20.08.2013.

c) The defendant No.1 started tea stall under the name and style of Savera Tea Point and closed the passage on the eastern side of the said premises and the said passage is the only ingress and egress to the house of the plaintiff from the main road. Thus, the plaintiff made a complaint to the Municipal Authorities against defendant No.1, who filed O.S.No.40 of 2013 against Municipalit