K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The question involved in this Revision is whether donees under a gift deed, who were made liable to pay certain amounts to certain persons under the terms of the gift deed, are entitled to deposit before the civil court the amounts so payable and get such deposit recorded, when the genuineness of the gift deed itself is disputed by the persons to whom the amounts are to paid.

2. The petitioners in Revision filed O.P.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Munsiff, Thrissur, under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, to record the deposit of amounts as per the terms of settlement deed, No.6148 of 1981, Sub Registrars Office, Thrissur. The petitioners are the widow and children of late Gangadharan, who died on 21.1.2000. The first respondent is the sister of Gangadharan. Respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of Kalyani, another sister of Gangadharan. The sixth respondent is the foster son of Ammu, mother of Gangadharan. The property in question belonged to Ammu. She executed settlement deed No.6148/81, Sub Registrars Officer, Thrissur, in favour of her son Gangadharan. As per the terms of the settlement deed, the donee Gangadharan was liable to pay Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent, Rs.2,000/- to the predecessor of respondents 2 to 5 and another sum of Rs.2,000/- to the sixth respondent. Gangadharan was prepared to pay the amounts to the respondents, but the respondents evaded receipt of the amounts. Notice dated 24.4.2000 was issued to the respondents. The first respondent received the amount and executed a receipt. However, the other respondents were not prepared to accept the amounts. The petitioners sought permission of the court to deposit Rs.4,000/- payable to respondents 2 to 6.

3. Respondents 2 to 6 opposed the prayer in the application. They contended that the application is not maintainable in law. The settlement deed in favour of Gangadharan is not a genuine document. Ammu was under treatment from 1980 onwards and she was not having a sound disposing state of mind. The property dealt with under the settlement deed is worth at least Rs.5 lakhs. Respondents 2 to 6 further contended that the settlement deed is not binding on them or the property.

4. Before the court below, the respondents contended that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the case and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioners and to record the deposit. Since the genuineness of the gift deed is disputed, the proper remedy for the petitioners is to institute a suit for declaration before the competent civil court.

5. The court below held that the petition is not maintainable and the remedy of the petitioners is to file a suit. Reserving the right of the petitioners to file a suit for declaration, the petition was dismissed.

6. Sri. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the application is maintainable and all that is required to be done by the court below is to record the deposit of the amount payable as per the terms of the settlement deed. He also submits that the petitioners limit their relief to record such deposit and that it is not necessary to render a finding that their liability under the gift deed stood discharged, though such a prayer was made before the court below. Sri. Chandrasekhar submits that the petitioners are not obliged to file a civil suit for declaration of their title, as, according to the petitioners, there is no cloud on their title. He also submitted that the petitioners cannot be compelled to institute a suit which they do not want to.

7. Sri. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the court below. According to him, there cannot be an application for just recording a deposit without adjudication of the right, title and interest of the parties, which are in dispute as evidenced by the petiti