The main legal point established in the judgment is that an incomplete gift can be revoked at any time, and the validity of a subsequent gift depends on whether the original gift had become complete by the donee accepting it.

The father of minor defendants 1 to 4 who had been appointed as guardian ad litem has filed this appeal. The plaintiff is the son of the sister of one Pichu Ammal who is now dead. This Pichu Ammal was a Brahmin widow. On 28.4.1115 she had executed a gift deed for the plaint properties in favour of one Valliammal, the mother of the defendants. This Valli Ammal was the daughter's daughter of Pichu Ammal's deceased brother Sankaranarayana Iyer. Valli Ammal died in 1116 Pichu Ammal then executed Ext. B on 6.12.1116 cancelling the gift deed Ext. A to Valli Ammal. The same day she had executed Ext. E, a gift deed for the plaint and other properties in favour of the plaintiff in the case. It was the plaintiff's allegation that Valli Ammal had no knowledge of the execution of Ext. A gift deed in her favour, nor had she accepted the same. She had also not acted according to the provisions made therein. According to him Ext. A was therefore an invalid document. The properties covered by Ext. A remained in the possession of Pichu Ammal, and the plaintiff stated that after Pichu Ammal's death he got possession of the same. The plaintiff applied before the Taluk Office, Thovala for mutation of name in the revenue records. This was not allowed by the Tahsildar. His appeal against the order before the Assistant Peishkar, Padmanabhapuram, and the revision petition before the Division Peishkar, Trivandrum, were

unsuccessful. This has cast a cloud on his title, and so he prayed for the cancellation of the orders passed by the revenue authorities. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, and for a direction to the revenue authorities to grant him Patta pursuant to Ext. E gift deed in his favour.

2. The guardian of the minor defendants contested the case. He had stated that the gift deed Ext. A to Valli Ammal was a valid document, that she had accepted the same, that the donor herself had produced the original gift deed for registration and got it back, that the donor had the custody of the gift deed and the prior title deeds on behalf of the donee, that when it was necessary for Valli Ammal to go and render assistance to Pichu Ammal, the former went and resided with Pichu Ammal at her residence in Erachikulam, that Ext. A gift deed was valid and enforceable, that for the execution of the gift deed by Pichu Ammal to the plaintiff, Pichu Ammal was not a conscious party, that she was also absolutely incompetent to execute the gift deed Ext. E, that the plaintiff had not obtained possession of the plaint properties, for they were still with Pichu Ammal's lessees, that the orders passed by the revenue authorities mentioned in the plaint were all correct, that the minor defendants had obtained Patta for the properties after the death of Pichu Ammal, that the suit was wanting in bona fides and that it was conceived in the hope that the defendants being poor could not effectively resist the plaintiff who was a vakil of the District Court, Nagercoil. They therefore prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs. They filed an additional written statement in which it was stated that though Ext. A was styled a gift deed, it was in effect a settlement deed, and that it was referred to as the gift deed in the previous written statement because it had been so described in Ext. A.

3. The trial court held that Ext. A gift deed in favour of Valli Ammal had taken effect and become operative, that Pichu Ammal was therefore incompetent to execute Ext. E gift deed to the plaintiff, that Ext. E had not come into operation, that the plaintiff was not entitled to effect the mutation in his name, that the question of possession after the death of Pichu Ammal was not very material since she had a right to be in possession of the properties till her death, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. In the course of the suit a Receiver had been appointed for the plaint properties. The trial cour