KOCHU AHAMMED PILLAI Vs. PATHUMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for cancellation of documents executed by the 1st defendant. Though the suit was decreed by the Trial Court, it was reversed in appeal by the 1st appellate court.

(2.) The plaint schedule property belonged to Kochu Bappu Kader Pillay. The plaintiff is the son of Kader Pillay and the 1st defendant is his daughter. Kader Pillay executed Ext. A1 gift deed on 28.7.1967 in respect of the plaint schedule property. The dispute in this litigation is with respect to the scope and content of Ext. A1. While the plaintiff states that the gift is in favour of the plaintiff subject to life interest in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant contended that the gift was in favour of her and the plaintiff did not get any right under the gift deed. The 1st defendant executed Ext. A2 lease deed in favour of the third defendant, her son inlaw in respect of plaint schedule item 1 and Ext. A3 gift deed in favour of her daughter, the 2nd defendant in respect of plaint schedule item No. 2. The contention of the plaintiff is that these documents are not valid and binding on him.

(3.) The question therefore is whether Ext. A1 gives absolute right to the 1st defendant or not. In the first portion of Ext. A1, the father of the 1st defendant has stated that out of love and affection towards the daughter, he has given all his rights in the property as gift to the 1st defendant and from that day onwards the 1st defendant is to enjoy the property, effect mutation in the revenue records and obtain patta. In the latter portion of the document, it is stated that after the death of 1st defendant the property will devolve on the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff has to look after the affairs of the 1st defendant and in case of any default, the 1st defendant will be entitled to encumber the property. The Trial Court found that in view of the subsequent clause, it was clear that the father did not intend to create any absolute right in favour of the 1st defendant. It was therefore held that the 1st defendant got only a life interest and the absolute right vested in the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court declared the title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties and declared that the subsequent documents executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are invalid and those documents were set aside. The prayer for injunction was disallowed since the 1st defendant was entitled to enjoy the property during his life time.