JUDGMENT : B. SYAMSUNDER, J. 1. The defendants in O.S. No. 319 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri are the appellants. The 3rd appellant/3rd defendant died during the pendency of the appeal, due to that the appellant Nos. 6 and 7 are added as her legal representatives. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the suit was instituted by the respondent against the appellants, seeking declaration that Ex.A2/ Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 said to have been executed by her mother Smt. Seetharavamma is not valid and legal, which not binding on her and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.03½ cents, out of Ac. 2.83 cents in D. No. 110/E3 within the specific boundaries, situated at Rayapudi village. 2. The appellants and the respondent hereinafter referred to as defendants and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against defendants for declaration that Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 said to be executed by her mother Smt. Seetharavamma is not valid and it does not bind on her and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are her brothers and the 3rd defendant is her sister-in-law and parties are inter related. The plaintiff submits that one Smt. Moturi Seetharavamma is her mother who is the original owner of the plaint schedule property, who acquired the same under registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976 and said Smt. Seetharavamma resided in her house for a period of more than 20 years upto November, 2003 and the plaintiff used to look after her welfare with utmost love and affection. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants never care to look after the needs of their mother Smt. Seetharavamma, due to that Smt. Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed, dated 27.10.1998 in her favour in respect of the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of Ac. 1.03 ½ cents out of Ac. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants never care to look after the needs of their mother Smt. Seetharavamma, due to that Smt. Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed, dated 27.10.1998 in her favour in respect of the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of Ac. 1.03 ½ cents out of Ac. 2.83½ cents with lemon trees, keeping life interest with her and vested remainder to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s mother used to enjoy the usufructs by selling the lemon crop every year. Since the execution of the Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants bore grudge against the plaintiff’s mother and tried to disturb her possession and enjoyment, due to that the mother of the plaintiff also lodged a report before Thulluru Police Station. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were waiting for an opportunity to grab the plaint schedule property and also remaining extent of Ac. 1.83 cents of land under suit survey number, which belongs to Smt. Seetharavamma, in the first week of December, 2003 when Smt. Seetharavamma went to Rayapudi for selling the lemon usufructs, who fell sick, due to her ill-health and when the plaintiff tried to get back her mother, which is not allowed by the defendants, who died on 19.11.2004 at Rayapudi. The plaintiff submits that after the death of her mother as per Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed, dated 27.10.1998 she became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, but recently the defendants are proclaiming that Smt. Seetharavamma cancelled Registered Settlement Deed on 10.12.2003 by executing Registered Cancellation Deed, which is created by the defendants, taking advantage of ill-health of Smt. Seetharavamma. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Smt. Seetharavamma is signatory, but on Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, there are thumb impression marks, which itself shows that fraud and coercion played by the defendants. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that as per law once the property is settled by executing a registered document, it cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her right and for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. 4. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that as per law once the property is settled by executing a registered document, it cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her right and for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. 4. The defendants have filed written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiff stating that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the 3rd defendant is not a necessary party to the suit. They have stated that their mother Smt. Seetharavamma has voluntarily executed Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003, due to that the plaintiff has no right to question the same after the death of her mother, and the suit ought to have been filed during the life time of Smt. M. Seetharavamma. They also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. They pray to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. To what relief?” 6. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as DW-1, but no documents were marked. 7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by cancelling Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, dated 10.12.2003 executed by the mother of the plaintiff, Smt. Seetharavamma, and granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against defendants. 8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants have preferred A.S. No. 454 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court, Guntur, which was dismissed by the first Appellate Court, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. 9. In these circumstances, the present Second Appeal is presented. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. A.V. Sivaiah as well as learned Senior Counsel Mr. Venugopal, representing Mr. E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned Counsel for the respondent. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that there is no dispute that the property originally belongs to Smt. Seetharavamma, mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. A.V. Sivaiah as well as learned Senior Counsel Mr. Venugopal, representing Mr. E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned Counsel for the respondent. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that there is no dispute that the property originally belongs to Smt. Seetharavamma, mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, who got the property under Registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976, and thereafter Smt. Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff, keeping life interest, which itself shows that there was no delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the document, which also observed by the learned trial Judge. He would further submit that as Smt. Seetharavamma retained life interest in the plaint schedule property, has not transferred the property in favour of the plaintiff absolutely, due to that she is entitled to execute Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed, and thereafter she executed Registered WILL in favour of her five sons on 16.12.2003, and she died on 19.11.2004. He argued that Smt. Seetharavamma was living with the 2nd defendant and enjoying the property and the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and granting permanent injunction by the Courts below is erroneous. He further argued that the observation of the learned trial Judge that ‘title follows possession’ is erroneous, which has to be set aside. He prays to allow the appeal. 12. The learned Senior Counsel, representing the respondent/plaintiff would submit that there is no dispute with regard to Smt. Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff and unilateral cancellation of Ex.A1 is not valid under law, which rightly held by the Courts below. He would further submit that Ex.A1 is a Gift Deed, as it was executed by Smt. Seetharavamma in favour of her daughter out of love and affection. He would further submit that Ex.A1 is a Gift Deed, as it was executed by Smt. Seetharavamma in favour of her daughter out of love and affection. When any gift is executed in respect of any property within the family members, it is called as ‘settlement deed’ and if the property is given to any third party out of love and affection, it will be called as ‘gift deed.’ He would further submit that under Ex.A1, there was absolute transfer of plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the ‘principle of possession follows title’ is rightly applicable to the facts of the present case. He relied on the following precedent law: (1) Renikuntla Rajamma (Died) by LRs. vs. K. Sarwanamma, Civil Appeal No. 4195 of 2008, dated 17.07.2014 SC, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Para Nos. 17, 18 and 19, which reads as under: “17. We are in respectful agreement with the statement of law contained in the above passage. There is indeed no provision in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without transfer of possession of such property. As noticed earlier, Section 123 does not make the delivery of possession of the gifted property essential for validity of a gift. It is true that the attention of this Court does not appear to have been drawn to the earlier decision rendered in Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker (supra) where this Court had on a reading of the recital of the gift deed and the cancellation deed held that the gift was not complete. This Court had in that case found that the donee had not accepted the gift thereby making the gift incomplete. This Court, further, held that the donor cancelled the gift within a month of the gift and subsequently executed a Will in favour of the appellant on a proper construction of the deed and the deed cancelling the same this Court held that the gift in favour of the donee was conditional and that there was no acceptance of the same by the donee. The gift deed conferred limited right upon the donee and was to become operative after the death of the donee. This is evident from the following passage from the said judgment: “7. The gift deed conferred limited right upon the donee and was to become operative after the death of the donee. This is evident from the following passage from the said judgment: “7. It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the property, together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property. The question is whether the gift in question had become complete under Section 123 of the TP Act? It is seen from the recitals of the gift deed that Motilal Gopalji gifted the property to the respondent. In other words, it was a conditional gift. There is no recital of acceptance nor is there any evidence in proof of acceptance. Similarly, he had specifically stated that the property would remain in his possession till he was alive. Thereafter, the gifted property would become his property and he was entitled to collect mesne profits in respect of the existing rooms throughout his life. The gift deed conferred only limited right upon the respondent-donee. The gift was to become operative after the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. It would thus be seen that the donor had executed a conditional gift deed and retained the possession and enjoyment of the property during his lifetime.......” 18. The above decision clearly rests on the facts of that case. If the gift was conditional and there was no acceptance of the donee it could not operate as a gift. Absolute transfer of ownership in the gifted property in favour of the donee was absent in that case which led this Court to hold that the gift was conditional and had to become operative only after the death of the donee. The judgment is in that view clearly distinguishable and cannot be read to be an authority for the proposition that delivery of possession is an essential requirement for making a valid gift. 19. In the case at hand as already noticed by us, the execution of registered gift deed and its attestation by two witnesses is not in dispute. The judgment is in that view clearly distinguishable and cannot be read to be an authority for the proposition that delivery of possession is an essential requirement for making a valid gift. 19. In the case at hand as already noticed by us, the execution of registered gift deed and its attestation by two witnesses is not in dispute. It has also been concurrently held by all the three courts below that the donee had accepted the gift. The recitals in the gift deed also prove transfer of absolute title in the gifted property from the donor to the donee. What is retained is only the right to use the property during the lifetime of the donor which does not in any way affect the transfer of ownership in favour of the donee by the donor.” (2) Syamala Raja Kumari and Others vs. Alla Seetharavamma and Another, 2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 40 AP, Judgment dated 02.01.2017, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that when life interest is retained in the gift deed, the said document makes it clear that it is not at all a Will and it is only a gift deed and what was retained by the donor is right to enjoy the property till his death and similarly, his wife also was enjoyed the property till her death. The learned Single Judge followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Renikuntla Rajamma case referred supra at Para No. 11, which reads as under: “11. In the present situation, a case of Renikuntla Rajamma (Died) by LRs. vs. K. Sarwanamma, 2014 AIR SC 906 is relevant whereby held that the recitals in the gift deed also prove transfer of absolute title in the gifted property from the donor to the done. What is retained is only the right to use the property during the life time of the donor, which does not in any way affect the transfer of ownership in favour of the donee by the donor.” (3) Nakka Parthasarathy vs. Nakka Krishnaveni and Another, AS No. 760 of 1999, Judgment dated 02.04.2013 AP High Court, wherein it is held that when the gift was made voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence, it cannot be revoked by the executant, on the ground that beneficiaries under the gift were not looking after him properly and revocation deed is null and void. (4) Tummidi Bala Nagamani vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, District Registrar, Joint Sub Registrar, Tummidi Prasanna Mahalakshmi, 2022 Law Suit (AP) 1210, Judgment dated 29.09.2022, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi and Another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2010) 15 SCC 207 , which discussed Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) of Rules made under the Registration Act, 1908 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is also discussed the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari and Others vs. Ananthula Sayamma and Others, 2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB) and held that unilaterally cancellation of gift deed is violative of Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) of Rules framed under the Registration Act by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellants would also submit that additional evidence produced by the appellants, which are revenue records not considered by the Appellate Court and erroneously dismissed the petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. 14. For which, the learned Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff would submit that the Appellate Judge has given elaborately reasoning for dismissing the additional evidence petition, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which needs no interference. 15. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law, which were raised at Ground No. 12 (a) and (b), which reads as under: “(a) Whether the settlement deed reserving life estate to the executant is to be considered as a Will and whether the executant has got the power to modify or cancel the settlement deed during her life time and whether the beneficiary under the settlement deed would acquire rights on the property which cannot be revoked by the executant during her life time? (b) Whether the cancellation of the settlement deed is a voidable document if it is not coming within any of grounds contemplated under Sections 13 to 23 of the Indian Contract Act?” 16. As per Section 100 of CPC, this Court can interfere with the Judgment of the Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. As per Section 100 of CPC, this Court can interfere with the Judgment of the Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. and Others vs. Saraswati and Others in Civil Appeal No. NIL of 2022 and Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8736 of 2016 Judgment dated 22.09.2022, explained the scope of Section 100 of CPC and laid down the principles relating to Section 100 of CPC at Para No. 33 of the Judgment, which reads as under: “33. The principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is a misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in constructing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (Emphasis supplied) (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which effects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the Court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence” it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 18. It is not in dispute that originally the plaint schedule property and other property in the same survey number belong to Smt. Seetharavamma, who is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, who got the property under the Registered WILL, dated 11.02.1976. It is also not in dispute that during her life time, Smt. Seetharavamma executed Ex.A1/Registered Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff by settling the plaint schedule property out of love and affection, as the plaintiff is no other than her daughter. Section 2 (24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defines Settlement Deed, which reads as under: “(24) Settlement: “Settlement” means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing, of movable or immovable property (whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise) made: (a) in consideration of marriage. (b) for the purpose of distributing property of the settler among his family or those for whom he desires to provide, or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him. (c) for any religious or charitable purpose. And includes an agreement in writing to make such a disposition [and, where any such disposition has not been made in writing, any instrument recording, whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise, the terms of any such disposition].” 19. As rightly held by the learned Appellate Judge that “settlement” means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing in respect of movable or immovable property, which has done in the present case. A perusal of contents of Ex.A1, which makes it clear that mother, gave immovable property to her daughter out of love and affection. As rightly held by the learned Appellate Judge that “settlement” means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing in respect of movable or immovable property, which has done in the present case. A perusal of contents of Ex.A1, which makes it clear that mother, gave immovable property to her daughter out of love and affection. It is also recited in Ex.A1 that the executant can enjoy the usufruct only and she has no right to sell the property during her life time, which the plaintiff can took possession and after the death of the executant and then enjoy with absolute rights. The recitals of document, which attracts the definition of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines the “gift” which reads as under: “Gift” defined - Gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance when to be made - Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void. 20. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Renikuntla Rajamma case referred supra relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act does not make the delivery of possession of the gifted property essential for validity of a gift. As rightly held by the Courts below that delivering Ex.A1/registered document by the executant to the plaintiff itself amounts to an acceptance and retaining life interest to enjoy usufructs alone will not make the gift invalid. When once the gift is complete and accepted by the plaintiff and when gift is not without any condition or stipulation of cancellation, it cannot be unilaterally revoked, as rightly held by the Courts below. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Srigiri Venkata Ramanamma (Died) as LRs and Others vs. Srigiri Sri Venkateswara Rao, 2023 (6) ALT 251 (AP) also considered similar issue and held that unilateral cancellation of Gift Deed is not valid and when no specific condition for revocation has been made in the deed, the Gift cannot be revoked. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Srigiri Venkata Ramanamma (Died) as LRs and Others vs. Srigiri Sri Venkateswara Rao, 2023 (6) ALT 251 (AP) also considered similar issue and held that unilateral cancellation of Gift Deed is not valid and when no specific condition for revocation has been made in the deed, the Gift cannot be revoked. The learned Single Judge also discussed Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provision gives the instances when a gift can be revoked or suspended and followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi and Another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2010 (15) SCC 207 which not approved view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Maheswari vs. Ananthula Sayamma, 2006 (6) ALT 623 (FB). When once the gift is completed, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled. 21. It is also not the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff not allowed the executant to enjoy the usufruct. The Courts below have rightly held that execution of Ex.A2/ cancellation of Ex.A1 is not legal and it is not valid, which does not bind the plaintiff. The learned Appellate Judge rightly rejected the petition filed by the defendants under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, as those are Revenue records, which are basing on alleged WILL said to be executed by Smt. Seetharavamma in their favour and when Smt. Seetharavamma herself has no right to cancel Ex.A1/ Settlement Deed, any document said to be executed by Smt. Seetharavamma are not valid under law, and any mutations effected in the Revenue records in pursuance of those documents are also not valid. The learned Appellate Judge also held that Ex.A2/Registered Cancellation Deed obtained by coercion, but erroneously held that ‘title follows possession’ instead of ‘possession follows title’ that itself is not a ground to reject the equitable relief of permanent injunction sought by the plaintiff, in view of principle of ‘possession follows title’ as she is able to prove that Ex.A1 executed by her mother and Ex.A2/cancellation of Ex.A1 is not valid under law. 22. Basing on material and evidence, both Courts rightly appreciated the evidence, and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 23. 22. Basing on material and evidence, both Courts rightly appreciated the evidence, and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 23. In these circumstances, finding no such questions that require consideration in this Second Appeal, much less substantial question of law, or appreciation of evidence as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, this Second Appeal has to be dismissed. 24. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The Interim Orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.