JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 31-10-2023 in A.S.No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Bapatla (for short, 'the appellate Court'), confirming the decree and judgment dated 13-11-2015 in O.S.No. 107 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant herein is defendant No. 2, respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein are defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and respondent No. 5 herein is defendant No. 1 in O.S.No. 107 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court, defendant No. 1 died and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were added as legal-representatives of deceased defendant No. 1 as per the orders in I.A.No. 1109 of 2008 dated 20-11-2009.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 107 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for declaring that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed dated 19-06-1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in her favour, for consequential relief of possession from the defendants after the death of defendant No. 1, for future profits and for costs.

4. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, defendant No. 2 in the above said suit filed appeal in A.S.No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the first appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No. 2 in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

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

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 107 of 2005, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac. 2.25 cents situated in Palaparru Village of Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. The plaintiff is elder sister's granddaughter of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had no female issues and the plaintiff was brought up from her childhood by defendant No. 1 and her husband and they got her educated and performed her marriage treating her as if she is their adopted daughter. The plaintiff pleaded that unfortunately, the only son of defendant No. 1 by name Subba Rao died and after that, the husband of defendant No. 1 also died and subsequently, defendant No. 1 and her daughter-in-law filed a suit for partition of their family properties in O.S.No. 44 of 1994 on the file of the trial Court which was compromised and in the said compromise, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff further pleaded that out of love and affection, defendant No. 1 conveyed the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by way of a registered settlement deed dated 19-06-1989 in a sound and disposing state of mind by conveying vested right in her favour and she retained the possession during her lifetime and she created vested remainder rights in favour of the plaintiff and that delivery of possession was legally postponed till the death of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 performed marriage of the plaintiff and even after the marriage, their relations were cordial as defendant No. 1 used to come from Karamchedu and staying in her house. She further pleaded that the settlement deed dated 19-06-1989 was accepted and acted upon. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No. 1, whose mental condition was not stable, executed a registered revocation deed dated 18-08-1992 without any cause or to her notice and she executed the registered revocation deed unilaterally by cancelling the earlier registered gift settlement deed. The plaintiff further pleaded that subsequently, defendant No. 1 executed a registered sal