IMBICHIMOIDEENKUTTY Vs. PATHUMUNNI UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First defendant in O.S. No. 47 of 1982 of the Sub Court, Tirur is the appellant herein.

(2.) Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the daughters and the first defendant is the son of late P.K. Pareekutty, who died on 27-8-1972. His wife died on 27-8-1984. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of plaint A and B schedule immovable property and plaint C schedule movables on the allegation that the assets belonged to Pareekutty, that he gifted plaint A schedule property to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 under Ext. Al gift deed dated 24-1-1972, en 2-4-1972 Pareekutty purported to execute Ext. B2 cancellation hut that could not legally take effect and defendants unlawfully trespassed and reduced the property to their possession. Plaint B and C schedule assets are liable to be divided among the heirs of Pareekutty. Plaintiff also sought recovery of possession of A schedule property or alternatively partition of the same among the heirs.

(3.) First defendant filed written statement contending that Al gift deed was not valid, that possession did not pass thereunder, that the gift was not accepted by the donee and it was vitiated by misrepresentation and undue influence, that it was also invalid as gift of musha, that the original gift deed was with the donor and the plaintiff illegally took custody of the gift deed after his death and that the gift deed was not acted upon. Pareekutty sent Ext. B3 notice to the plaintiff pointing out this state of affairs. In 1968 he orally entrusted the property to the first defendant to effect improvements. In July 1972 he orally gifted the property to his wife, who accepted the same and the in turn executed Ext. B1 gift deed dated 7-12-1973 in favour of the first defendant and hence first defendant is in possession of the property. The ether children of Pareekutty have no right in the plaint A and B schedule immovable properties. There were no movables as shown in schedule C to the plaint. Whatever movables existed were taken away by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. He has effected improvements and hence is entitled to reservation in the event of partition.