THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.610 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments rendered in A.S.No.97 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2005, by the Courts of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Tenali, and the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, respectively. The suit was filed by the respondent for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property and recovery of possession thereof, from the appellant. The respondent is the sister of one Degala Seetharavamma. It was stated that Seetharavamma acquired the suit schedule property and gifted the same to the respondent through a registered document, dated 17-09-2002. It was alleged that the appellant was permitted to live in a corner of the suit property, and after the death of Seetharavamma, the appellant started asserting rights, in herself. The appellant filed a written-statement. She pleaded that her husband by name, Mastan Rao was adopted by Seetharavamma, and her husband Bhavana Narayana, and after the death of Seetharavamma, she succeeded to the property, since Mastan Rao is no more. She challenged the legality of the gift deed, relied upon by the respondent. Her further contention was that Seetharavamma has no right or power to execute the gift deed. Through its judgment dated 19-01-2009, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appellant filed A.S.No.97 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 03-05-2010. Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that late Seetharavamma has admitted that she adopted Mastan Rao, the husband of the appellant, and in fact, claimed compensation as adoptive mother, when Mastan Rao died in an accident. He contends that the property was held by the family, comprising of late Bhavana Narayana, his wife; Seetharavamma, and Mastan Rao, and in that view of the matter, Seetharavamma has no right to transfer the same to anyone. He submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have not applied the correct principles of law, in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the suit schedule property was the self-acquisition of Seetharavamma, and she has every right to execute the gift deed. He contends that there was no adoption, whatever, as pleaded by the appellant, and at no point of time, Mastan Rao and Bhavana Narayana, lived together. Learned counsel submits that both the Courts have accorded concurrent findings, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The suit filed by the respondent was, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues, viz., 1) whether the plaintiff has got title to the plaint schedule property ? and 2) whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession ? The respondent deposed as PW-1, and examined one Sivaramakrishna, as PW-2. She filed Exs.A-1 to A-6. Prominent among them are, Exs.A-1 and A-2. Ex.A-1 is a sale deed, dated 02-02-1996, through which Seetharavamma purchased the property, and Ex.A-2 is the gift deed, dated 17-09-2006, executed by her, in favour of the respondent. The appellant deposed as DW-1, and she examined DWs 2 and 3. She filed Exs.B-1 to B-14. Ex.B-1 does not appear to be immediately relevant. Ex.B-2 is the copy of the award passed in the M.V.O.P.No.476 of 1997. Rest of the documents are, house tax receipts and demand notices. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court framed only one point, for its consideration, viz., whether the judgment of the trial Court warrants any interference ? The claim of the appellant is based mostly upon the alleged adoption of her husband, Mastan Rao, by Bhavana Narayana, and his wife, Seetharavamma. Bhavana Narayana is none other than the senior paternal uncle of Mastan Rao. Except stating orally that Mastan Rao was adopted by Bhavana Narayana and his wife, the appellant did not place any reliable evidence, to prove the factum of adoption. It is no doubt true that Ex.B-2 has some relevance. In the M.V.O.P., Seetharavamma appears to have claimed to be one of the dependents of Mastan Rao. That, however, not a contested matter, and hardly any specific finding was recorded. It was in the form of a consent award, passed by the Lok Adalat. Assuming that Seetharavamma admitted that Mastan Rao is her adopted son, the gift in favour of the respondent does not get vitiated. The reason is that the suit schedule property was the one, acquired by herself, through Ex.A-1, and not the one, inherited by her, through her husband. Once Seetharqavamma has the absolute owner of the property, she has every right to transfer it, as per her wishes. She executed the gift deed, Ex.A-2, in favour of the respondent, who is none other than her sister. The trial and lower Appellate Courtd have taken the correct view of the matter, which accords with the evidence on record. This Court does not find any substantial question of law in the Second Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client has no other shelter, and she may be granted reasonable time, to vacate, till she makes alternative arrangements. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted time, till 30-06-2011, subject to the condition that she shall file an undertaking before the trial Court within two months from today, to the effect that she would handover the vacant possession of the property to the respondent, on or before 30-06-2011. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09-07-2010. KO