JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs, two in number, who are both minors represented by their next friend and mother, along with the defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties from 1st defendant. According to the plaint, the defendants 2 and 3 are also entitled along with the plaintiffs to the joint possession of the properties and as they had not joined as plaintiffs, they were made defendants.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant executed and registered a gift deed in favour of themselves, defendants 2 and 3 and another Palur Ramayya on 10-4-1945 which he purported to revoke by another registered deed on 8-5-1945. The plaintiffs claim that the 1st defendant had no right to revoke the gift deed. The main defence of the 1st defendant was that there was no acceptance of the gift by the plaintiffs or the other donees and that therefore he was not entitled to revoke it.

The trial Court found that there was proof of acceptance by the donees and since according to the terms of the gift deed the 1st defendant was entitled to continue in possession of the property during his life time, it held that the plaintiffs could obtain only a declaration that the gift deed in their favour was valid but not to recovery of possession. The decree made by the trial Court however contained a declaration not only in favour of the plaintiffs but also in favour of the defendants 2 and 3.

The 1st defendant appealed to the District Court against the decision of the trial Court. The defendants 2 and 3 also filed a memorandum of cross-objections thereto and claimed that they ought to have been given a declaration in their favour as well. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the 1st defendant taking the view that there was no proof of acceptance of the gift deed by the donees. Further, he dismissed the memorandum of cross-objections.

He seems to have thought that apart from the merits of the dispute, the memorandum of cross-objections was not sustainable as the decree made by the trial Court contained a declaration in favour of the defendants 2 and 8. The learned District Judge was right in stating that the decree of the trial Court contained such a declaration. But he over-looked the fact that the trial Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment only said that "there will therefore be a declaration that the gift under Ex. B-1 in favour of the plaintiffs is valid." The decree drawn up was beyond the terms of the judgment.

3. The present appeal, as already stated, is by the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3. The only question therefore that arises for determination is whether the 1st defendant was, in the circumstances of the case, entitled to revoke Ex. B-1, the gift deed in dispute. Before discussing this question, it is necessary to bear in mind the relationship of the parties. The appellants are the sons of one Seetharamayya, a sisters son of the 1st defendant.

Defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers of Seetharamayya. Palur Ramayya the other donee is the son of another sister of the 1st defendant. The mother of the plaintiff is also stated to be related to the 1st defendant otherwise than as the wife of his nephew. According to her, she had lost her mother when she was very young and that she had been brought up by the 1st defendant who is a cousin of hers.

The undisputed facts are that the 1st defendant was deeply attached to his nephews and the plaintiffs, and he having no children himself and having therefore decided to make an adoption wanted to settle some properties on his nephews and the plaintiffs before his power of disposition of the properties in his hands is affected by the adoption.

The 1st defendants case is that he had executed Ex. B-1 secretly, that neither the plaintiffs mother nor any of the other donees knew about it until after it was registered, that they were dissatisfied with and not only did t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document