KUNHUMARAKKAR Vs. T K SAVITHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against a common judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge deciding two connected appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THESE appeals are under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act. Such an appeal has to be considered on yardsticks akin to those that would apply to a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) MOIDUTTY, a merchant, appears to have developed intimacy with Savithri. MOIDUTTY had a wife while he grew familiar with Savithri. Kunhumarakkar is MOIDUTTY's son through that woman. With passage of time and cohabitation, MOIDUTTY purchased a parcel of land in Palakkad District, on which a house was put up, stated to be by Savithri utilizing funds available to her by running a tailoring school and from funds received from MOIDUTTY. It appears that after some time the relationship between MOIDUTTY and Savithri started loosing its charm and MOIDUTTY recoiled back to his earlier matrimonial home. Savithri took the stand that MOIDUTTY had made an oral gift of the aforesaid parcel and it is acting on that gift that she holds exclusive title to that piece.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge on a reappreciation of the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the oral gift by Moidutty pleaded by Savithri has been established by cogent evidence and with no contra evidence coming from Moidutty, the learned Single Judge held that Moidutty's son Kunhumarakkar did not have any shred of legal right to sustain the plea of recovery of possession from Savithri.