JUDGMENT Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. - This Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) is filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the suit. Defendant No.4 in the suit is shown as respondent No.2 and is shown as not a necessary party. The sole plaintiff is shown as respondent No.1. 2. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri J. Saraschandra Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted their arguments. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Nos.1 and 2 died. Their legal representatives have not been brought on record. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the cause of action survives and appellant No.3 is the very daughter of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and therefore appeal survives. 4. No contrary submission is made on behalf of respondent No.1. 5. Property in dispute is an extent of 221 square yards of site with a RCC roof house on it bearing Door No.68010-27 in Ramanayyapeta Sivaru, Gaigolupadu Village, Kakinada Municipal Area, East Godavari District. 6. Smt. Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai, as an indigent person, filed O.S.No.91 of 2006 before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada seeking a declaration of her title over the above referred property which is well described in the plaint schedule and sought a direction as against defendant Nos.1 to 4 to vacate the property and deliver vacant property to her and also prayed for setting aside gift deed dated 06.05.2002 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. In the plaint she alleged that this property was owned by Smt. K. Nageswaramma and from her plaintiff purchased it for Rs. 47,300/- under a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1996. However, defendant No.2 impersonating herself as plaintiff executed a registered gift deed dated 06.05.2002 in favour of her two children/defendant Nos.3 and 4. The said gift deed is invalid as she had no right to alienate such property. On coming to know about such gift deed the plaintiff got executed a cancellation gift deed dated 28.05.2003. The further case set out in the plaint is that defendant No.1 was a Sub-Inspector of Police and retired from service and he had developed intimacy with the plaintiff and married her in 1989. They cohabited in this plaint schedule property till April, 2002. Defendant No.1 is husband of defendant No.2. The further case set out in the plaint is that defendant No.1 was a Sub-Inspector of Police and retired from service and he had developed intimacy with the plaintiff and married her in 1989. They cohabited in this plaint schedule property till April, 2002. Defendant No.1 is husband of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of those spouses. Plaintiff was sent out of the house. It is in these circumstances the suit is filed for the prayers referred above. 7. Defendant No.4 did not enter the contest and remained ex parte before the trial Court. Defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 filed a written statement and defendant No.3 filed a memo adopting the same. Relationship among defendants is admitted. The intimacy and the marriage alleged in the plaint between plaintiff and defendant No.1 is denied as false. Plaintiff is the wife of Sri Kandikatla Dharmananda Mohana Rao and she had a daughter by name Nirupama and also a son. Plaintiff once met defendant No.1 and explained him about her miserable condition and out of compassion her daughter Nirupama was allowed to run a tailoring institute in the suit schedule property. Be it noted here, in the cause title of the suit the name of defendant No.2 is shown as Potla Alishamma. In the written statement of defendants, it is further stated that the original name of defendant No.2 is Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai and thereafter by virtue of conversion of religion of defendant No.1 who adopted the faith of Christianity, the name of his wife/defendant No.2 is changed as Alishamma. In the written statement it is specially pleaded that the plaint schedule property was purchased by defendant No.2 and thereafter she validly executed a gift deed in favour of her children. That the plaintiff never purchased the plaint schedule property. She had no capacity to purchase the said property and thereafter build a house thereon. Nirupama, the daughter of plaintiff, might have stolen the original registered sale deed standing in favour of defendant No.2. For these reasons, they sought dismissal of the suit. 8. Learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant? 2. Whether the plaint schedule property is Stridhana property of 2nd defendant, provided by 1st defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of plaintiff's title over plaint schedule property? 4. 8. Learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant? 2. Whether the plaint schedule property is Stridhana property of 2nd defendant, provided by 1st defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of plaintiff's title over plaint schedule property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant delivery of possession of plaint schedule property? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of gift deed dated 06.02.2002? 6. Whether the plaint schedule is correct? 7. To what relief? 9. To prove the respective cases, there is oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.19 and there is oral evidence of DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.8. 10. Based on the material on record and the contentions advanced on both sides, the learned trial Court held that plaintiff is the rightful owner of plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1-sale deed dated 31.01.1996 and defendant No.2 is only Potla Alishamma and she is not Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. Since defendant No.2 had no title over the plaint schedule property, the gift deed under Ex.B.3 executed by her in favour of her daughters/defendant Nos.3 and 4 is invalid and does not bind the plaintiff. It held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. Finally, it passed a judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants in the following terms: '21. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and further directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in peaceful vacant possession of the plaint schedule property within one month and it is further declared that the gift deed Ex.B.3 dated 06.05.2002 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and that the cancellation of gift deed under Ex.A.5 dated 28.05.2003 executed by plaintiff is valid. The defendants are directed to pay the court-fee payable in this suit to the Government.' 11. In challenge to the above judgment, the present appeal is preferred contending that plaintiff failed to produce evidence beyond reasonable doubt to get a judgment and decree in her favour and the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and in granting the relief. The defendants are directed to pay the court-fee payable in this suit to the Government.' 11. In challenge to the above judgment, the present appeal is preferred contending that plaintiff failed to produce evidence beyond reasonable doubt to get a judgment and decree in her favour and the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and in granting the relief. Plaintiff in her evidence admitted that she is wife of Sri Kandikatla Dharmananda Mohana Rao and was not divorced and therefore she could not be called with the surname Potla. Plaintiff had no right to execute a cancellation gift deed dated 28.05.2003 under Ex.A.5. The crucial question in the litigation is, who is Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai - whether it is plaintiff or defendant No.2. Without framing any issue in that regard, learned trial Court disposed of the case and therefore it is erroneous. That the suit is barred by limitation. For these reasons, the appellants seek to set aside the impugned judgment. 12. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the trial Court appropriately appreciated the evidence on record and reached to appropriate conclusions and there is no warrant for interference. The material on record also indicated that defendant No.4 did not even accept the gift deed executed by defendant No.2 and a gift which was not accepted does not amount to gift and does not create any rights. For these reasons, learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeal. 13. On hearing the submissions on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the following points fall for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the plaint schedule property covered by Ex.A.1-registered sale deed dated 31.01.1996 was purchased by the plaintiff or was purchased by defendant No.2? 2. Whether defendant No.2-Potla Alishamma is also called as Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma? 3. Whether the impugned judgment suffers from errors of fact or law requiring interference? Point Nos.1 to 3: 14. As could be seen from the pleadings on both sides and the evidence on both sides, plaintiff Smt. Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai's name is never in dispute. As per the written statement of defendants, the name of defendant No.2 is also Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. Undisputed evidence on record indicated Ex.A.1-registered sale deed stands in the name of Smt. Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai. As per the written statement of defendants, the name of defendant No.2 is also Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. Undisputed evidence on record indicated Ex.A.1-registered sale deed stands in the name of Smt. Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai. According to plaintiff, she purchased that property and thereafter constructed a house on it. According to defendants, defendant No.2 purchased this property and constructed a house on it. Therefore, who is Bala Saraswathi Pillai is the crucial determining factor to clinch the issue as to whom Ex.A.1-sale deed belonged to. During the trial, plaintiff - Smt. Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai produced Ex.A.1-registered sale deed. Defendants failed to adduce any evidence that such a document was with the defendants at any time and that it was stolen away by one Nirupama from their house. Defendant No.1 being an erstwhile police officer could have certainly initiated some or the other proceedings for recovery of such a valuable document if at all it was stolen from his house. Pleadings and evidence did not indicate any such efforts. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to think that Ex.A.1 was never with defendants and as it was never with the defendants it could not have been stolen by anyone including Nirupama. Thus, Ex.A.1 containing the name of Bala Saraswathi Pillai is produced by plaintiff whose name is Bala Saraswathi Pillai. Plaintiff producing this document probablises her contention that she purchased the property. 15. Defendant No.1 is Potla Ramamohan Rao. Pleaded case of him is that he changed his religion from Hinduism to Christianity. Be it noted, despite such change, there is no change in his name. Pleaded case is that his wife/defendant No.2-Alishamma alone changed her name. Her original name was Bala Saraswathi Pillai and on change of religion she gained the name Alishamma and therefore her full name is Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. This being the specific case pleaded by the defendants/appellants, it is for them to prove it. When the name became a matter of dispute, it is normally expected that the Court trying the suit would frame an issue on that. Record shows that trial Court did not frame any issue strictly on this aspect. It is that part of the omission that is challenged in this appeal. When the name became a matter of dispute, it is normally expected that the Court trying the suit would frame an issue on that. Record shows that trial Court did not frame any issue strictly on this aspect. It is that part of the omission that is challenged in this appeal. I must say that though an issue was not framed by the trial Court, the fact is that the trial Court well grasped the real controversy and in the impugned judgment after narrating the issues framed in the suit at paragraph No.6 the trial Court mentioned as below: '6. Issues 1 to 5 are discussed together since they are inter-related and dependant on the outcome as to who is 'Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai', whether plaintiff or 2nd defendant?' 16. Thereafter one would notice complete focus of the trial Court on that aspect of the name and a detailed discussion spread into nine pages plus was rendered by the trial Court. A reading of the oral evidence adduced on both sides would also show that their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations revolved around the disputed aspect concerning name only. Thus, both parties to the litigation as well as the Court trying the suit were fully aware as to what was at the heart of the dispute and both parties adduced evidence in that regard. Though a specific issue was not framed formally, entire focus of the trial Court revolved around that fact of the matter. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal laches. At any rate, the appellants have not even raised the questions of prejudice being occurred to them because of absence of a specific issue concerning name. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that there was no specific issue concerning the name dispute is a contention without any merit. 17. Since the name of the plaintiff is Bala Saraswathi Pillai is never in dispute, there was no need for her to establish her name once again. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that as plaintiff failed to prove her identity the suit ought not to have been decreed is a contention that lacks any merit. 18. The specific case of defendants/appellants is that defendant No.2 is Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that as plaintiff failed to prove her identity the suit ought not to have been decreed is a contention that lacks any merit. 18. The specific case of defendants/appellants is that defendant No.2 is Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 would show about ration cards/household cards, voter identity cards, pension passbook of defendant No.1 which would contain the name of his wife/defendant No.2 and school or college certificates or any other such documents pertaining to defendant No.2 showing her name are all available and DWs.1 and 2 said that they would not produce them. In that context, learned trial Court recorded that defendants did not choose to produce such documents and stated that production of such documents would have indicated the actual and real name of defendant No.2 and the fact that such documents were suppressed allowed it to conclude that there is no evidence brought on record showing that defendant No.2 is Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. It may also be recorded here that the conversion of religion is not borne by record through any document and change of name is also not borne by record through any document. Thus, defendants having asserted a particular name for defendant No.2 failed to demonstrate the truth of their contention. Added to this, the learned trial Court conducted a serious scrutiny of signatures of defendant No.2 on her pleadings, on her examination-in-chief and cross-examination papers and made a detailed record stating that at certain places only defendant No.2 was writing her name as Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma and at other places she was writing differently and at one place she wrote her name as Alishamma and then added thereafter the remaining part of her alleged name. Thus, the trial Court even castigated the conduct of defendant No.2 in trying to conceal her real name. During arguments, learned counsel for appellants failed to put forth any contention to find fault with any of the observations of the trial Court. Thus, the trial Court even castigated the conduct of defendant No.2 in trying to conceal her real name. During arguments, learned counsel for appellants failed to put forth any contention to find fault with any of the observations of the trial Court. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court that it is the plaintiff and plaintiff alone is Potla Bala Saraswathi Pillai and such name is not there for defendant No.2 and the only name of defendant No.2 is Potla Alishamma and thus, Ex.A.1-registered sale deed always belonged to plaintiff and it is the plaintiff who purchased such property and defendant No.2 never purchased such property are to be accepted as correct. Such findings are based on evidence. The conclusions reached are the only conclusions that could be reached from the material on record and those findings are to be upheld. 19. Defendant No.2 executed Ex.B.3-registered gift deed dated 06.05.2002 in favour of her daughters/defendant Nos.3 and 4. Under this gift deed she gifted the property covered by Ex.A.1 which is the plaint schedule property. Since the property covered under Ex.A.1 is owned by plaintiff, defendant No.2 had no power to transfer such property under such gift deed. Defendant No.2 resorted to execution of Ex.B.3 for the first time indicating her name falsely. In other words, while she was Potla Alishamma, she described herself as Bala Saraswathi Pillai @ Alishamma. In such circumstances, the trial Court was right in holding that this Ex.B.3-registered gift deed carries no effect on the title of plaintiff held by her under Ex.A.1. Plaintiff under her anxiety, though not a party to Ex.B.3, in the act of rescuing her property, executed Ex.A.5-cancellation gift deed. In terms of law Ex.A.5 carries no value. However, the observation of the trial Court is that in the context of the totality of the facts the conduct of plaintiff in executing Ex.A.5 cannot be found fault with. The findings of the trial Court on Ex.A.5 are questioned in this appeal, but any decision in that regard helps none. The grounds urged in this appeal have no merit. All the points are answered in favour of respondent No.1 and against the appellants. 20. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 05.12.2008 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.91 of 2006 is confirmed. The grounds urged in this appeal have no merit. All the points are answered in favour of respondent No.1 and against the appellants. 20. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 05.12.2008 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.91 of 2006 is confirmed. Consequently, the appellants and respondent No.2 should vacate the suit schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on or before 31.03.2024, failing which plaintiff/respondent No.1 could take recourse to process of law before the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.