The court established that revocation of a valid gift deed requires adherence to legal formalities, and unilateral revocations are invalid, confirming title and possession rights based on the original deed.

Judgment:

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 16.03.2020 in A.S.No.150 of 2016, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (“First Appellant Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 13.10.2016 in O.S.No.271 of 2007, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff; respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and 5^th respondent herein is 3^rd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.271 of 2007, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.271 of 2007, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, with a prayer for declaring his title over the schedule property and for a consequential recovery of possession of the same.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 in the above said suit filed A.S.No.150 of 2016, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The First Appellate Court, allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.271 of 2007, is as follows:

The 1^st defendant is the mother of plaintiff whereas the 2^nd defendant is his sister and that plaint schedule property belongs to the 1^st defendant and that on 25.06.1986, she gifted the schedule property to the plaintiff executing a registered settlement deed and that he accepted the same. On 01.09.1986, the 1^st defendant executed a revocation deed of the settlement deed, dated 25.06.1986 but it is not valid under law. Subsequently, the 1^st defendant executed a gift deed in favour of 2^nd defendant on 13.04.2006 and in turn, the 2^nd defendant executed a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney on 30.04.2007 in favour of 3^rd defendant and she had mentioned as if she gave possession of the suit property to the 3^rd defendant, but such agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 30.04.2007 is invalid and illegal in view of the settlement deed, dated 25.06.1986. On 19.06.2007, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants asserting his title over the schedule property. On 25.06.2007 the 1^st defendant and on 03.06.2007 the 3^rd defendant issued reply but they cannot claim any right, title and interest over the schedule property. The plaintiff impleaded the defendant Nos.4 and 5 as per order in I.A.No.403 of 2014, dated 15.10.2014. In collusion with the defendant Nos.2 and 3, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 obtained sale deed on 09.11.2012 but they did not acquire any right over the schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit.

7. The 1^st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

On 25.06.1986, the 1^st defendant executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff, but because of the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff i.e., as he abused her and as he beat her, she cancelled it on 01.09.1986. She is the absolute owner of the schedule pr