The main legal point established in the judgment is that the title of the property had been transferred on the execution of the gift deed, and delivery of possession was not an essential prerequisite for a valid gift in the case of immovable property for Hindus.

Challenging the common judgment in A.S.No.30/2007 and A.S.No.77/2007 of the Additional District Court-III, Kollam, the plaintiff in O.S.32/2000 and the defendants in O.S.No.97/00 of the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta have come up with these second appeals. The appellants in RSA 936/2010 are the wife and the other relatives of the appellant in RSA 757/2011. Both the suits were jointly tried. O.S.No.32/2000 was one for getting Ext.A4 cancellation deed set aside and for the declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The first defendant in the suit is the paternal aunt of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is her husband. O.S.No.97/2000 was filed by the defendants in O.S.No.32/2000 as a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from committing trespass into the plaint schedule property and from committing waste thereon. O.S.No.32/2000 was treated as the main case and the evidence was recorded in it.

2. On the side of the plaintiff PWs.1 to 3 were marked and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B13 were marked. The trial court decreed both the suits.

3. Appeals were filed before the lower appellate court as A.S.No.30/2007 and A.S.No.77/2007 respectively. The lower appellate court dismissed A.S.No.77/2007. At the same time, the lower appellate court allowed A.S.No.30/2007 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.32/2000 and by dismissing the suit. The parties are referred to hereunder, in the order in which they are referred to in O.S.No.32/2000.

4. This Court admitted RSA 757/2011 on the following substantial questions of law:

"Is the finding of the lower appellate court that Ext.A2 is not a deed of gift contrary to law?"

R.S.A.936/2011 also has been admitted on the very same substantial question of law raised in RSA 757/2011, when both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the lower appellate court.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 9½ cents and the residential building thereon is the subject matter of Ext.B3 gift deed. The building in the plaint schedule property is named 'Chandralayam'. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his family were residing in Chandralayam even prior to the execution of Ext.B3 along with the defendants, and they continued to reside there after the execution of Ext.B3 also. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 27.02.1997, defendants had accepted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff by way of consideration for the plaint schedule property, and thereafter, instead of executing the sale deed, the first defendant had executed Ext.B3 gift deed only in favour of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. On 27.02.1997, when the defendants insisted for the payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- more, the plaintiff again paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Again, the defendants demanded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- more. Since the plaintiff was not willing to make the said payment, the first defendant had executed Ext.A4 cancellation deed on 02.06.1999 thereby cancelling Ext.B3 gift deed. The plaintiff challenges the validity of Ext.A4 as well as seeks for a decree for getting it aside and also for getting his title over the plaint schedule property, declared.

6. The defendants contended that even though the nomenclature of Ext.B3 is that of a gift deed, what was intended to be executed was only a Will. According to the defendants, the terms in Ext.B3 clearly denote that it was executed as a Will, and not as a gift deed. The receipt of amounts from the plaintiff has been denied. According to the defendants, Ext.B3 has never come into effect and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree sought for.

7. O.S.No.97/2000 was filed against the father, wife and other relatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No.32/2000 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against trespass and waste.

8. He