The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the clauses in the gift deed and the determination of whether the donees obtained valid title to the properties under the gift deed.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the decree dismissing a suit for partition and recovery of her share in the properties of her father Kuttikannu Mytheen Kannu who died on 7-10-1124. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of Mytheen Kannu and his widow the 1st defendant. They had four daughters and two sons, defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff's case was that she was entitled to a 7/ 64th share in the properties. Defendants 2 and 3 resisted the suit alleging that the properties in schedule A were gifted to them by their father under Ext. A dated 2-7-1123 and that the plaintiff and other heirs of their father were not entitled to claim any share in the same. Items Nos. 10 and 11 in schedule A had been mortgaged with possession by Mytheen Kannu to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage and these items were in the plaintiff's possession at the time of the gift. According to defendants 2 and 3 all the other immovable properties came into their possession under Ext. A The defendants denied having come into possession of the movables in schedule B. Defendants 1, 4 and 6 supported the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a replication stating that defendants 2 and 3 came into possession of the properties only after her father's death. This suit was tried along with O. S. No. 120 of 1951, a suit by defendants 2 and 3 for redemption of the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the gift had come into effect and that the plaintiff in the suit for partition was not entitled to any relief. The suit was accordingly dismissed. O. S. No. 120 of 1951 was decreed allowing redemption and there is no appeal from that decree.

2. The question for decision in this appeal is whether defendants 2 and 3 obtained valid title to the properties under the gift deed. Though several grounds were urged in the plaint in support of the case that the gift was invalid and inoperative, the only point pressed in appeal was that the donees did not get possession of the properties covered by the deed of gift and that it was therefore inoperative. It was contended that the terms of the gift deed made it clear that possession was to remain with the donor till his death. The relevant clauses in Ext. A may be translated as follows:

"The properties described in the schedule are given to you as gift. You are to take possession of those properties, to pay tax on the same and to obtain Patta for all the properties other than survey Nos. 1708,1727 and 1699 which are mortgage rights. You are to surrender the mortgaged properties on receipt of the mortgage money or to take renewals of the same and to hold the properties with absolute rights after my life time I will be taking the yield of the properties during my life time and you are not to do any act which might obstruct the same and if you execute any deed in respect of the properties during my life time the same should be with my concurrence 16 cents in S. No.

2364 have been given to my daughter Kadija Beevi on Stridhanom Otti. I will pay the money due to her and obtain a release".

It was argued that the clause that the donees were to enjoy the properties with absolute rights after the donor's death indicated that the gift was to come into effect only after the donor's death. We are unable to accept this interpretation. If such had been the intention of the donor, this clause should have come at the commencement of the operative portion of the deed. On the other hand what is seen from the deed is that the donees were to take possession of the properties, to obtain pattas in their name and to pay tax to the Government from the date of the gift deed. The clause that donees were to hold the properties with absolute right after the donor's death was inserted at the end of the operative portion because the usufruct of the properties was to go the donor during his life time. It may be mentioned that there was no restriction on the donees making improvements on the properties. The dee