The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the gift deeds under Mohamedan Law and the requirement of possession and enjoyment of the properties, influencing the court's decision to dismiss the suit for partition.

RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for partition.

2. Plaint A and B schedule properties originally belonged to one Kaderkutty Haji. He died intestate and had no issues. First defendant is the widow of Kaderkutty Haji. Defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased brother of Kaderkutty Haji and plaintiff is his sister. Since Kaderkutty Haji died intestate, according to the plaintiff, she got half share of the properties of Haji and first defendant has got half of the remaining half and that defendants 2 to 5 had got the remaining half share. Kaderkutty Haji had other items of properties and those items were partitioned as partition deed dated 11-11-82. However, the plaint schedule items were not included in the said partition. Later mediators intervened and tried to settle the matter relating to the plaint schedule properties, but the same was not materialised. Defendants 2 to 5 later filed O.S. 474/83 which was dismissed for default. However, a contention was raised in the said suit by first defendant that the plaint schedule properties were gifted to her. According to the plaintiff even if the gift deed was executed the same is invalid. She, therefore, sought for partition and separation of half share of plaint A and B schedule properties.

3. In the suit defendants 4 and 5 remained ex parte. Defendants 2 and 3 admitted the plaint claim. First defendant contended that the plaint schedule properties are not available for partition. It is her case item Nos. 2 to 5 and half right over item No.1 were gifted by Kaderkutty Haji vide Ext. B3 document. The remaining half right over item No. 1 along with item Nos. 6 and 7 were gifted in her favour vide Ext. B4 document dated 21-2-1977. She was also put in possession and she is in absolute enjoyment of the properties by virtue of the abovementioned documents. Later items 1 and 4 to 7 were assigned by her to 6th defendant, brother of the first defendant, vide Ext. B9 document dated 11-7-84. Item No. 2 was given in wakf vide Ext. B2 document dated 8-8-84 in favour of Jumayath Committee. Item No. 3 was also given in wakf to Jumayath Committee vide document dated 8-8-84. It is her case all the remaining properties left by deceased Kaderkutty Haji were partitioned in between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. Defendants 6 and 7 also filed a written statement supporting first defendant. Eighth defendant also reiterated the same contention.

4. While the suit was pending first defendant died. Sixth defendant, her brother was in the array of parties. Ninth defendant, sister of the first defendant was also later impleaded as legal representative of the first defendant. She filed written statement supporting the plaint claim and contended that she has got 1/2 share over the right of the first defendant and sought a decree accordingly. After the filing of a written statement plaint was got amended contending that the gift is invalid and that the assignments effected by the first defendant are also invalid. Son of the plaintiff was examined as PW-1. Sixth defendant was examined as DW-1. DW-2 and DW-3 were attestors of Exts. B4 and B3 gift deeds. Various documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff as well as on the side of defendants. The Court below considered the entire oral and

documentary evidence and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

5. According to the counsel for the appellant plaint schedule properties of Kaderkutty Haji are to be partitioned among the legal heirs. It is her contention that the gift deeds B3 and B 4 have not come into effect. Even if the gift deeds were executed the properties were not put in possession of first defendant. Deceased Haji had been in possession of the property till his death and he was appropriating the income from the said property. Properties were also not mutated in the name of the first defendant till the death of Haji. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents conte