IMPORTANT POINT
A father can make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits, keeping in view, the total extent of the property held by the family in favour of his daughter at the time of her marriage or long after her marriage.

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "appellants"), the appellants have come up in this appeal.

2. Shortly stated the facts are:

The appellants are the daughters of the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent"). By a registered settlement deed, Exhibit A-1 dated 29th of August, 1985, the respondent hereinabove settled an extent of 12 cents of land comprised in S.No.113/2, Thathagapatti Village, Salem District in favour of the appellants. As per recitals in the settlement deed, the settlement was made by the respondent out of natural love and affection for the appellants and the possession of the property was handed over to them on the day the settlement deed was executed. The schedule of settlement deed shows that the total extent of the property owned by the family was 3.16 acres. The gift was made of 12 cents along with Mangalore tiled house standing on the gifted land. It was also stated in the settlement deed that in future neither the respondent nor any other male or female heirs would have a right over the settled property.

3. After nearly 5 years, on 22nd April, 1990, respondent and his associates asked the appellants to vacate the property and tried to trespass into the property. Because of the attempt made by the respondent to trespass into the property, the appellants filed the Original Suit No.451 of 1990 in the Court of District Munsif, Salem seeking relief of restraining the respondent and his associates from interfering with the appellant s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any way by way of a permanent injunction, or, for grant of relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Respondent resisted the suit and in the written statement filed by him, he took the stand that he had not executed any settlement deed. That his son-in-law i.e., husband of appellant No.1 had purchased a house site and the respondent was taken to the Registrar s office to witness the sale deed. That he was used to taking liquor and taking advantage of his addiction to liquor the appellants and their respective husbands fraudulently by misrepresentation instead got the sale deed executed from him. The property in dispute being Joint Hindu Family property consisting of himself and his son could not be gifted under any circumstances.

4. In support of their respective pleas, the parties led their evidences. The appellant No.1 stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She admitted that the property was ancestral. That her father had settled the property on her and her sister of his own will out of nature love and affection for them. PW-2, the attesting witness to Exhibit A-1 stated that he knew the respondent. While he was standing on the road and talking to some persons, he was called by the respondent to witness the document. He went to Sub-Registrar s office along with the respondent. Respondent put his signatures on Exhibit A-1 after reading the same. That he (himself) and Govindaswamy signed Exhibit A-1 as witnesses. Govindaswamy has died. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not know the contents of the document, Exhibit A-1. He showed his ignorance as to when, where or in whose name the stamp papers were purchased. He denied having knowledge of the fact as to whether the respondent was in the habit of drinking liquor. Respondent in order to prove his case stepped in the witness box as DW-1. He stated that the property was a Joint Hindu Family property as the same had been purchased with the sale proceeds of the ancestral property. That his son-in-law who was working in TVS had purchased some property and he was taken by his son-in-law to sign as a witness. He denied having executed the settlement deed in favour of the appellants. He denied that he knew PW-2. It was stated that the possession of the appellants was permissive as they were allowed to re