The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of a gift deed involving joint family property, emphasizing the extended meaning of 'Hindu' in the codifying Acts, the absence of compelling necessity for the gift, and the need for an inquiry into the reasonableness of the provision.

Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O.S. No.133 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Addl. Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum, are the appellants. The suit is for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant over the plaint schedule property and for an injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from entering into the plaint schedule property and alternatively to recover possession of the property if the Court finds that the 3rd defendant is in possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. There is also a prayer for partition of the suit property if the Court finds that the document Ext. 17 dated 13-3-1975 is not void in its entirety.

2. It is the plaintiffs' case that the plaint schedule property was obtained by Adichan Nadar, the father of the 4th defendant, under the partition deed of the year 1079 evidenced by Ext. A-1, that the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant and Santhakumari are the children of the 4th defendant, that they are Hindu Nadars governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law, that the properties obtained by Adichan Nadar devolved on the 4th defendant and he was in possession of the same as Manager of the joint family, and that the plaintiffs obtained right over the properties of the joint family by birth. It was also alleged in the plaint that on 13-3-1975 the 4th defendant representing himself as the sole owner of the property, executed a gift deed Ext. B-7 in respect of the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant, but that document is void as the 4th defendant was incompetent to execute the document for the following reasons :

1. The properties are coparcenary properties and hence the fourth defendant is not competent to execute any document without family necessity or consideration.

2. The gift deed was executed as dowry for the marriage of the first defendant which is prohibited under the Dowry Prohibition Act and therefore no legal right follows to defendants under the document.

3. Even if the 4th defendant had any right to execute the gift deed in respect of the properties within the reasonable limits, he has exceeded those limits in the execution of the document. There were 9 members including the first defendant to be maintained by the 4th defendant at the time of the execution of the gift deed. The family was not in good financial circumstances and many properties were outstanding on mortgage at that time. Besides the execution of the gift deed the 4th defendant has given jewels and utensils worth more than Rs. 10,000 / - to the first defendant at the time of her marriage. He has encumbered and alienated many item of immovable properties for meeting the marriage expenses of the first defendant. There was another daughter, Santhakumari, to be married. The status of the family and its poor circumstances were not considered by the 4th defendant when he executed the document.

4. The plaint schedule property is the best of the entire properties and is yielding an annual income of Rs. 1,000 / - by executing the said document the family has been deprived of the best of the properties. The 4th defendant is not competent to execute such a document.

The plaintiffs also averred that though the document was executed, the 1st defendant did not get possession of the property, since many relations of the plaintiffs intervened and informed the 4th defendant about the unjust way in which he dealt with the properties, and therefore the 4th defendant subsequently cancelled the gift deed. The plaintiffs as members of the coparcenary are in possession of the property and they were taking income from the property, that when the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants were attempting to execute the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant they issued a registered notice to the defendants setting out the fact that the 1st defendant had no right to the property. Notwithstanding this, defendants 1 and 2 executed the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant on 20-5-1978 and Ext. B-10 is the sale deed. It is