The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of property rights under a gift deed and the application of S.22 of the Nayar Act to determine the nature of the property rights.

1. These two appeals arise out of O.S. 229/1951, District Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally filed by the 5 plaintiffs for setting aside the sale deed, Ext.1 executed in favour of the first defendant by their mother the second defendant and their father regarding item 1 of the plaint schedule. Plaint item 2 is a building constructed on item 1 by the first defendant after his purchase. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaint item 1 was obtained by gift by their mother from their father under Ext. A and that the said property constitutes the sub-tarwad property of the second defendant and her children.

2. The plaintiffs further contended that the sale deed is not supported by consideration and necessity and as such, it is not binding on the plaintiffs.

3. The first defendant contended that the sale-deed sought to be set aside is fully supported by consideration & tarwad necessity. He contended that even on the allegations contained in the plaint that it is sub-tarward property, the second defendant, as the manager of the family, has executed the sale deed for discharge of the decree debts and also for a cash consideration for purposes binding on the plaintiffs' sub-tarward. Therefore, they contended that the sale deed, Ext.1 is fully supported by consideration and also tarwad necessity.

4. Alternatively, the first defendant contended that, in any event, the gift obtained by the mother, the second defendant, will enure only for her benefit and the children then in existence namely, the first and second plaintiffs. In this view, the first defendant contended that the plaintiffs 3 to 5 are not at all entitled to any share in the suit properties. He also claimed value of improvements and denied his liability to pay mesne profits. There was also a contention raised by the first defendant to the effect that the gift by the husband in favour of his wife, the second defendant, the mother of the plaintiffs, was only in favour of the second defendant and even plaintiffs 1 and 2 did not acquire any interest in the properties and also that the gift deed has not at all come into force.

5. The trial court came to the conclusion that the gift deed, Ext. A has been action upon.

6. Though the first defendant appears to have contended that the gift under Ext. A enures only for the benefit of the second defendant as per the clauses in the gift, evidently, this aspect does not appear to have been pressed before the trial court, because it is stated in the judgment of the trial court that it is admitted that the property has devolved on the second defendant and her children as ai mbw property. The plaintiff took up the position that the gift will enure to the second defendant, the children then existing and to be born in future. But the first defendant took up the stand that it enures only to the second defendant and the children then in existence. It was also further contended by the first defendant that the children then existing and the second defendant will take the properties as tarwad properties attracting all the characteristics of a tarwad property including the power of the manager to deal with it for tarwad necessity and for consideration.

7. The trial court, in view of the provisions of S.22 of the Nayar Act - Travancore Regulation II/1100 held that it is a ai mbw property and the donees will take the definite shares on the basis of the ruling of the Travancore-Cochin High Court reported in Narayana Pillai v. Govinda Pillai (A.I.R.1952 T.C. 141) and the trial court also held that the gift under Ext. A will enure for the benefit of only the second defendant and her children then in existence. On a question of fact, it fond that on the date of the gift, only plaintiffs 1 and 2 were in existence and that plaintiffs 3 to 5 are children born after the date of the gift. Therefore, the trial court held that the second defendant plaintiffs 1 and 2 alone have an equal share in the property obtained under the gift deed, Ext. A by the secon