The main legal point established in the judgment is that a gift deed, once accepted by the donees, takes effect and cannot be set aside without evidence of fraudulent intent. The absence of evidence to support fraudulent intent led the court to uphold the validity of the gift deed.

1. Defendant, Travancore-Cochin State, is the appellant in this case, The suit is for declaration of plaintiffs' title to the plaint property, for recovery of possession of it from the defendant who has taken possession of it under S. 25 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling the property under that Act. The first plaintiff is the widow and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of one Ayyappan Ummini who is dead. The plaint property belonged to Ummini. Ummini executed a gift deed, Ext. B, in respect of the property in favour of his wife and children on 7.12.1105. Ummini had bid a toddy shop for the years 1106 and 1107 but he failed to deposit the security amount and to execute the necessary agreement. The shop was therefore resold and in the resale Government incurred a loss of Rs. 1053-8-0. For this amount Government attached the property in 1110 under the Revenue Recovery Act, assumed management of it under and S. 25 of the Act and let it on Kuthakappattom. The plaintiffs objected to the attachment contending that Ummini had no right in the property. The objection was overruled and steps were taken for selling the property under the Revenue Recovery Act. It was under these circumstances that the plaintiffs filed this suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

2. The defendant contended the gift deed, Ext. B, was a sham transaction, that it was fraudulently executed by Ummini with the object of defeating the State and that the property was liable to be proceeded against for the amount due to the State from Ummini. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. This last plea was, however, not pressed by the defendant at the time of hearing. The trial court held that Ext. B was a valid gift and that it was not executed for the purpose of defeating the State. The suit was, therefore decreed with costs.

3. The two questions that arise for decision in this appeal are (1) whether the gift deed, Ext. B, took effect and (2) if it took effect, whether it was executed with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of Ummini. So far as the first question is concerned we have only to see whether the gift was accepted by the donees. Under S. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act a gift is complete when it is accepted by or on behalf of the donee. S. 122 reads:

"Gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void."

There is ample evidence in this case to show that the gift was accepted by the donees. The gift deed is dated 7.12.1105. Under a registered lease deed, Ext. A, dated 1-4-1110 the first plaintiff leased the property to PW. 2. PW. 2 proves Ext. A and swears that he was in possession of the property as per the lease deed. When DW. 3, Provorthicar, was asked whether PW. 2 was not living in the building in the property and taking the yield from the property the answer given by him was that he does not remember. After the expiry of the term of the lease, Ext. A the property was given on lease by the plaintiffs to one Sankaran Ummini under another registered lease deed, Ext. C dated 10.4.1114. PWs.1, 2 and 3 swear to the possession of Sankaran Ummini under that lease deed. Both in Exts. A and C, it was stated that the plaintiffs got the property under the gift deed, Ext. B. After the date of the gift deed mutation was effected in the names of the plaintiffs. It is not disputed that plaintiffs are paying the tax for the property. The building that was in the property on the date of the gift deed was rebuilt by the first plaintiff. PW.1 swears that she rebuilt the house with her own money and that she spent about Rs. 700 for the purpose.