IMPORTANT POINTS
Sale made in his favour is valid and also binding on the plaintiff. When the entire evidence available on record is evaluated, it could be seen that the plaintiff could not adduce evidence to show that the gift was accepted by him and the process of transfer was completed as envisaged under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Sufficient evidence is not available to show that after registration of the gift deed the plaintiff, the new owner acquires the ownership over the property, to use it as per his wish.

JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful plaintiff filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12th April, 2007 in O.S. No. 103/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Kattappana, dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as per their ranking before the court below.

3. The factual matrix of the case is briefly stated as under:

The plaint schedule property was gifted to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant on 2.9.2002 as per Settlement Deed No. 1587/2002 of SRO Udumbanchola. The gift was accepted by the plaintiff and he had taken steps to effect mutation of the property. But he could not effect mutation, as mutation was not effected in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the wife of the plaintiff's brother G. Rajan, who is no more. The plaintiff was residing in Beherin along with his brother late Rajan till 1997. The plaintiff used to extend financial assistance to late Rajan till 2002 and thus in total he parted with an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and it remained unpaid till his death. The building in the property was leased out to State Bank of Travancore, Thookkupalam Branch and the rent was being collected by the donor. In the year 2004, when the plaintiff visited his native place, he was informed by his brother Jaison that a cancellation Deed as No.2378/2002 was executed by the 1st defendant cancelling the gift deed. Later, it was revealed that 1st defendant sold 1.800 cents of land as per sale deed No. 383/2003 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Since the property was gifted to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant, the execution of the cancellation deed as well the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant will not affect the plaintiff's rights. Hence, the suit was filed for a declaration that the cancellation deed and the sale deed are null and void and will not affect the rights of the plaintiff over the property as well for injunction restraining the 1st defendant from executing further documents pertaining to the plaint schedule property.

4. Per contra, the 1st defendant/1st respondent admitted the relationship of the parties, but denied the allegation that her husband late Rajan was residing with the plaintiff as well the allegation that the plaintiff used to meet her financial requirements and also of her husband late Rajan. In fact, late Rajan was a coffee dealer and he was running a cinema theatre also at Thookkupalam. But he had to meet certain financial liabilities and he died while the liabilities were pending. The first defendant had to give her daughter in marriage and also to meet the liabilities of her late husband and so, she had the intention to alienate certain landed properties. At that time, the plaintiff intervened and offered help to meet the financial crisis and he offered Rs.10,00,000/- to her daughter Bincy Rajan and to settle the liabilities pending before the Bank. But it was on the basis of certain conditions that she should transfer 10 cents of land in favour of his wife Kunjumol Alexander and the plaint schedule property in his favour. Thus the settlement deed and the sale deed was executed on 2.9.2002. But the settlement deed was not delivered to the plaintiff and there was no valid gift as alleged as the plaintiff has not accepted the same and hence the 1st defendant is in exclusive possession of the property and she is collecting rent from the building. When the plaintiff left for Beharin, as the sale consideration for the property transferred in the name of his wife, he had entrusted certain gold ornaments through one Prakash, his brother, as the value of the property. But the amount offered by the plaintiff was not paid, and so the settlement deed was cancelled by the 1st defendant by deed No.2378/2002 and conveyance deed No.383/2003 was executed. Both documents are valid documents.

5. The 2nd defendant contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for valid consideration without notice of the settlement deed an