JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997 in A.S.No.14 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Medak, wherein and whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.07.1994 in OS No. 2 of 1989 on the file of District Munsiff at Narsapur, was confirmed, and in the said suit the appellant relief for partition was rejected.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the said suit. For brevity, the ranking of the parties as were referred in the suit, is maintained.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that the agricultural properties admeasuring Ac.3-15 gts., Ac.3-01 gts., Ac.0-10 gts., Ac.0-15 gts., and Ac.0-14 gts., forming part of Sy.Nos. 54, 55, 199, 426/A and 407 respectively situated at Nallavalli village of Jinnaram Mandal of Medak District, and house property bearing No. 1-12 situated in the same village, are originally owned by Shaik Hussain, who is father of plaintiff and defendants. He died on 24.09.1988 leaving behind three daughters only. After his death, when the partition was demanded, the defendants have come up with a plea that their father executed a Gift Deed on 31.10.1979 in favour of the 2nd defendant and mutations were effected in the revenue records bringing the 2nd defendant(cid:146)s name as pattedar and possessor. Gift Deed was obtained when the father of plaintiff and defendants was not in sound mind and was suffering from infirmities, and the said Gift Deed is fabricated. Hence, the present suit is for partition and separate possession.

4. The 2nd defendant filed her written statement by admitting the nature of original ownership and possession of suit lands. According to her, the plaintiff(cid:146)s father executed a Gift Deed on 31.10.1979 transferring the entire property and possession was delivered and mutations were effected consequent to the said Gift Deed. She is in possession of the property. She denied that their father executed a Gift Deed in her favour when he was not in sound mind and was suffering from infirmities, but stated that Gift was voluntarily executed and it is valid and her name was mutated in the revenue records basing on the Gift Deed and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

i) Whether the schedule (cid:147)A(cid:148) & (cid:147)B(cid:148) properties are liable to be partitioned?

ii) What is the effect of Gift Deed dt. 31.10.1979?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule (cid:147)A(cid:148) & (cid:147)B(cid:148) properties?

6. The plaintiff in proof of her case, examined PWs 1 to 3 and relied upon Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants DWs

1 and 2 were examined and relied upon Ex.B1 to B3.

7. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, found that plaintiff is not entitled for partition for the reason that the father of the plaintiff executed a valid Gift Deed and the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit lands and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred first appeal and the first Appellate Court also after considering the evidence on record, found that no case is made out to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal is filed on the following grounds:

The question whether all the basic requirements of giving immovable property in fit viz., offer, delivery and acceptance having not been proved for the lower Court to come to a conclusion that the gift was legal and valid is an important question of law required to be considered in this second appeal, apart from the question of already stated in the appeal grounds.

8. At the time of hearing, this Court found that both the counsel have not considered the recitals of the Gift Deed where under there is no gift in respect of the house property forming part of t