The main legal point established is the principle of acceptance of gift, constructive trusteeship, and the interpretation of Section 72F(2) and Section 72F(3) of the Transfer of Property Act.

This is an appeal by defendants 2 to 7, 11 and 12. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and recovery of plaintiff's 2/4 share in the plaint schedule properties.

2. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to three persons by name Koran, Kunhiraman and Manikkam. The properties were acquired by the above said three persons under Ext. B-1. It is dt. 19-4-1943. The plaintiffs claim that the properties were gifted to four persons by the original owners under Ext. B - 2, which is same as Ext. A - 1. This gift deed is dt. 15-1-1946. The plaintiffs claim title to and right of partition of the properties as per Ext.A-1. The contesting defendants submit that Ext.A - 1 gift was cancelled by the donors. The cancellation is evidenced by document Ext. B - 3. It is same as Ext.A - 5. This document is dt. 8-8-1960. Further they submit that they are in possession of the properties with absolute title to the properties by virtue of three assignment deeds Ext.A - 6, A - 7, and B - 4. All these documents are also on the same date, viz. 8-8-1960. The contesting defendants also relied on three purchase certificates they have obtained subsequent to the institution of the suit, Exts. B - 16, B - 17 and B - 24.

3. The trial Court recorded a finding that there was a valid cancellation of the gift Ext. A - 1. Since there was a valid cancellation of gift Ext. A - 1, the donors acquired the right to transfer the properties. The donors assigned the properties to the contesting defendants by documents evidenced as Ext. B - 4, A - 6 and A -7. On the above finding the trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. The defeated plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry. The appellate Court said that the gift was irrevocable at the time when it was said to have been revoked by the donors. The donors had no transferable right in the properties. So the donors' assignments granted no interest in the properties to the contesting defendants. The Court held that the properties are liable to be artitioned. The finding recorded by the trial Court was reversed and the suit was decreed, passing a preliminary decree for partition. Now the contesting defendants appeal to this Court.

5. The counsel for the appellants and respondents argued their case very ably. The counsel for the appellants Mr. Sankara Menon raised two questions before me. He submitted that the finding of the appellate Court that there was no valid revocation of the gift is unsustainable in law. According to him there is absolutely no evidence of the acceptance of the gift. He further submits that the learned Sub Judge did not keep in mind the guidelines and principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts in the matter. He submits that legal evidence in regard to the acceptance of gift is nil and whatever scarce evidence - not legal - has been appreciated perversely by the appellate Court. The counsel for the respondents submits that there is clear and clinching evidence before the Court to come to a conclusion that the gift was revoked at a time when it was irrevocable since the gift was accepted by the donees before the date of Ext. B-3. The counsel on both sides cited before me several decisions on the question of acceptance of gift. I think it is not necessary for me to refer to all those decisions in detail or in brief, since the principles are well settled. At this point, I would like to say that though the counsel for the appellants in his appeal memorandum raised two questions based on the findings of the appellate Court as to the acceptance of the gift, this Court at the time of admission did not issue notice on those questions. This Court issued notice only on the following question:

"In view of Exts. B - 16 and B - 17 obtained under S.72(K) of the KLR Act are not the plaintiffs barred under law from recovering their share in the properties comprised therein."

Any how since the counsel insisted me to examine the correctness of the