THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.580 of 2011 and C.M.A.No.655 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of two interlocutory orders passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in O.S.No.229 of 2010. Appellant No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 and father of appellant No.2 are their sons. Respondent No.3 is the son of respondent No.2. The appellants filed the suit stating that respondent No.1 executed a gift deed, dated 04.06.2010, creating life interest in favour of appellant No.1 and vested remainder in favour of appellant No.2. It was alleged that coming under the pressure of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 cancelled the gift deed, dated 04.06.2010, through a document, dated 03.08.2010, and executed deeds of gift, dated 12.08.2010, in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the same property. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration that the deed of cancellation, dated 03.08.2010 and the deeds of gift, dated 12.08.2010, executed by respondent No.1 are null and void and that injunction be granted against the respondents. The appellants asserted possession over the suit schedule property on the strength of the gift deed, dated 04.06.2010. The appellants filed I.A.No.1007 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction against the respondents. The respondents, on the other hand, filed I.A.No.1114 of 2010 under the same provision and for the same relief against the appellants claiming possession over the property. Through a common order, dated 30.04.2011, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1007 of 2010 and the other application was allowed. Hence, these two appeals. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants filed the gift deed, dated 04.06.2010 as Ex.P1, the registration extract of cancellation deed as Ex.P2 and the office copy of the legal notice as Ex.P3. On behalf of the respondents, Exs.R1 to R13 were filed. Ex.R1 is the same as Ex.P2. The deeds of gift, dated 12.08.2010, are filed as Exs.R2 and R3. The other documents filed by the respondents are in the form of pattadar pass books issued in favour of the respondents, Adangals, revenue receipts etc. Respondent No.1 did execute gift deed, dated 04.06.2010, creating life interest in favour of appellant No.1. The question of appellant No.2 getting any rights over the property during the life time of appellant No.1 does not arise. Therefore, it has to be seen whether appellant No.1 had acquired any rights vis-à-vis the property under Ex.P1. Unlike other forms of transfer, the rights under a transfer through gift would accrue only on acceptance thereof. Though it may be a fact that respondent No.1 executed the gift deed, Ex.P1, the record does not throw light as to whether appellant No.1 had accepted the same and if so the manner thereof. Be that as it may, appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 being spouses, that too, living in harmony, the question of one enjoying the property of the other, to the latter’s exclusion, may not arise so simply. By pleading that the appellants procured Ex.P1 through undue influence, respondent No.1 executed the deed of cancellation, Ex.R1. The validity thereof needs to be examined in the course of trial of the suit. The appellants did not file any document to show that their names were entered in the revenue records based upon Ex.P1 or that they were issued pattadar pass books. On the other hand, the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the respondents were filed into the Court. In totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property to the exclusion of respondent No.1. Be that as it may, respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot claim exclusive possession in the present circumstances. At the most, respondent No.1 can be permitted to enjoy the property as usual leaving the manner of accrual of the property either in favour of the appellants or respondent Nos.2 and 3 to a later stage. The interests of appellants can be protected by directing that half of the returns from the property in question shall be set apart for the benefit of appellant No.1. Hence, the appeals are partly allowed directing that: (a) respondent No.1 shall be entitled to remain in possession of the suit schedule property to the exclusion of appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3. (b) he shall set apart half of the returns assessed at Rs.10,000/- per year and deposit the same to the credit of the suit on or before 10th of July of every year, commencing from 2011. (c) The trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.06.2011 kdl