KUTTIAN PADMINI Vs. NELLIYULLAPARAMBATH MATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal involves the short question whether Ext.A1 gift had been accepted by the donee, plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) Suit was instituted for a decree of injunction,but, later amended for declaration that Ext.A1 gift deed has been accepted by plaintiff, and it is valid and binding on the first defendant her mother.

(3.) Property covered by Ext.A1, with cents land also, belonged to first defendant and her mother Kunkichi. On the death of Kunkichi entireproperty vested with the first defendant. She executed Ext.A1 gift deed excluding cents in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff is settled in Goa where her husband is carrying on business. She received a notice sent by the mother informing revocation of Ext.A1 gift deed under Ext.B2 deed.Suit was thereupon instituted for a decree of injunction to restrain the two defendants, her mother and brother, from committing waste in the property imputing that cancellation deed was created at the instance of the brother Subsequently plaint was amended to seek a declaration that Ext.A1 gift deed has been accepted by her, it has come into effect, and it is binding on first defendant. Both defendants, mother and son together, resisted the suit contending that first defendant continued as the owner of property, and there was no parting of possession of property to plaintiff and acceptance of gift by her. Some disputes arose between the sons of first defendant with demands for sale of portions of plaint property, and then, she executed Ext.A1gift deed in favour of plaintiff to save the property from transfer at the compulsion of some of her children, according to defendants. Original of the gift deed (Ext.B1) was retained by first defendant, andtitle and possession over property was not transferred in favour of plaintiff, was the further case of defendants.