“C.R.” 1. The defendants in O.S.No.223 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla are the appellants. Pending the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff had passed away and his legal heirs have been brought in as additional 2nd and 3rd respondents.

2. The above suit was one for declaration of title, possession and injunction. Initially, the suit was filed as one for injunction alone, but, later, amended seeking the declaratory relief as well. There are two items of properties in the suit, both of which are claimed by the plaintiff under Ext.A1 gift deed executed by his maternal aunt Kunjulakshmi Amma. The defendants/appellants are the children of the other two sisters and brother of the aforesaid Kunjulakshmi Amma. Alleging interference, and threat of trespass, from the defendants over his possession and enjoyment of the properties, the plaintiff laid the suit for injunction, and, later, amended the plaint for declaration also, as his title was challenged by the defendants impeaching Ext.A1 gift. The defendants filed a joint written statement, in which they contended that Ext.A1 gift has not come into effect and it was the product of fraud and misrepresentation. The original gift deed always remained under the custody of the executant Kunjulakshmi Amma, who, later, realising the fraud and misrepresentation made, cancelled the gift. She also executed another gift deed in favour of her sisters and brother, reserving her life interest over the property. After the death of Kunjulakshmi Amma, the donees under the subsequent document are in possession and enjoyment of the properties, was the case of the defendants, resisting the claim canvassed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction set up in the suit.

3. On the materials placed, which consisted of PWs.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A5 series for the plaintiff and DWs.1 to 3 and Exts.B1 to B4 for the defendants, the claim of the plaintiff canvassed under Ext.A1 gift deed was upheld by the trial court holding that such gift had come into effect on its execution by Kunjulakshmi Amma and acceptance by the donee, plaintiff. The challenges raised impeaching its validity and also the rival claim of title and possession by the defendants by way of subsequent gift deed from Kunjulakshmi Amma, revoking the previous deed were turned down. Suit was decreed declaring the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, granting him perpetual prohibitory injunction as well restraining the defendants from trespassing and interfering with his possession and enjoyment. Challenge against the decision of the trial court by the appellants was turned down by the lower appellate court, dismissing their appeal. Concurrent decision so rendered by the two courts below that the plaintiff has obtained title and possession over the suit property under Ext.A1 gift deed and also the decree of injunction passed against the defendants, is assailed by them in this Second appeal.

4. Notice on admission given, the respondent/plaintiff entered appearance; and, later, on his demise, his legal representatives brought in as additional respondents appeared.

5. I heard the counsel on both sides. The main thrust of challenge pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below is that the contention of the defendants that Ext.A1 gift is vitiated by various reasons, has not been analysed and appreciated by the courts below according to the legal principles applicable to the case. In the given facts of the case, where the executant Kunjulakshmi Amma was shown to be pretty aged, 84 years old, and she, admittedly, after being hit by a scooter, was undergoing continuous treatment with intermittent hospitalisation, fraud and undue influence imputed in the execution of Ext.A1 gift deed, at the instance of the plaintiff, should have been analysed by the courts taking a different approach shifting the burden on the donee/the pla