Gift deed cannot be revoked at the mere choice of the donor.

Perumal, the defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of suit property. After trial, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge, Trichy. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge had reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come forward with this Second Appeal.

3. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they are brothers and the suit property was originally belonged to Irulayee Ammal, their grandmother. On 25.7.1975, the said Irulayee Ammal settled the suit property measuring about 24 cents in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by way of a gift deed. From then onwards, the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. On 5.5.1976, Iyyamperumal, the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiffs obtained another gift deed in respect of 12 cents out of the 24 cents by making mis-representation. On the basis of that, there was disturbance to the possession and enjoyment of the property. The said Iyyamperumal sent a lawyer's notice on 18.05.1976 to the plaintiffs. Reply notice also was sent. Thereafter, on 11.9.1981, the said Iyyamperumal sold the said 12 cents to the defendant. On the strength of the said sale deed, the defendant is trying to get possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs. Hence the suit for declaration and injunction.

4. The case of the defendant is as follows:

"The father of the plaintiffs and Iyyamperumal are brothers. Though Irulayee Ammal was their mother, on 5.5.1975, she executed a gift deed in favour of Iyyamperumal only by settling the suit property. This property has been entrusted to Iyyamperumal under oral gift in the year 1965 itself. From then onwards, the property is in possession and enjoyment of Iyyamperumal. Though it is stated that Irulayee Ammal executed a gift deed dated 25.07.1975 in favour of the plaintiffs settling 24 cents, the said deed is not a valid one. The contents of the said deed are not correct, as the settlement deed was executed not in respect of 24 cents; but only in respect of 12 cents on the Eastern side. The said mistake had been referred to and the same has been clarified by reference about the mistake in the said document dated 5.5.1976. The defendant purchased the suit property on 11.9.1981 from Iyyamperumal. Since then, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed."

5. On the strength of the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed and the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal before the District Court. The lower appellate court after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and on perusal of the records decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence this Second Appeal.

6. While the Second Appeal was admitted, the following two substantial questions of law were framed:

"1. When there is evidence of the Settlor herself that the possession of the suit property was not given to the plaintiffs pursuant to the Settlement deed dated 25.07.1975 and that the extent mentioned as 24 cents is a mistake for 12 cents, is the learned Principal Judge right in holding that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration?

2. When there is evidence of possession by 2nd defendant and his predecessor in interest from 1964 and no evidence of possession by the plaintiffs, is the learned Principal District Judge right in involving the presumption of possession follow title?"

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, while elaborating the above said substantial questions of law would submit that the settlement deed dated 25.7.1975 did not give the correct details as in the subsequent document.