AUGUSTINE Vs. THANKAMMA THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 308 of 1995. The 1st defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant in the A.F.A. The Trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the 1st defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation with regard to plaint A schedule properties and has obtained valid title on the basis of a gift deed executed by his mother with regard to plaint B schedule properties. In appeal, the learned single Judge reversed the findings on both points and has granted a decree for partition of both A and B schedule properties.

(2.) The plaintiff is the sister of the 1st defendant. Plaint A schedule properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and plaint B schedule properties belonged to their mother. The defence to the claim for partition of plaint A schedule properties is adverse possession and limitation and for B schedule properties is a gift deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

(3.) Ouseph Ouseph the father of the 1st defendant died on 10-7-1976. The parties are Syrian Christians in Kottayam District. There is no dispute that after the decision of the Supreme Court in Mary Roy v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1986 SC 1011 ), female children are also entitled to claim share in the properties of their parents. The points for consideration are (1) whether the claim of adverse possession and limitation set up by the 1st defendant is sustainable, and (2) whether the gift deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is proved to be a valid gift deed.