The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the gift deed and the sale deed, and their impact on the ownership of the property.

1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 20.12.2006, passed in I.A.No.207 of 2001 in O.S.No.276 of 1992, on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has laid the suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration that the second schedule property belongs to her absolutely and for the consequential direction to the respondents/defendants to deliver the possession of the same to her or in the alternative, for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the second schedule property to her by metes and bounds and also sought for the direction to the respondents/respondents/defendants to pay mesne profits from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession and for other reliefs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to her grandmother Fathima Beevi and that she had sold the second schedule of the suit properties to the plaintiff, under a registered sale deed, dated 14.11.1990. The plaintiff is the granddaughter of Fathima Beevi and the first defendant is the daughter-in-law of Fathima Beevi and the defendants 2 to 6 are the children of the first defendant. The first defendant's husband and the father of the defendants 2 to 6, namely, the deceased Kaja Mohideen had, taking advantage of staying of the said Fathima Beevi with him and by exercising undue influence and coercion, obtained a gift deed from her on 24.04.1982 without disclosing the nature of the transaction to her and further the said gift deed had not been acted upon and the possession of the property comprised therein had not been delivered to the deceased Kaja Mohideen and Fathima beevi retained the possession of the property with her during her lifetime and the gift deed is not a valid one and hence, according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as Fathima Beevi had sold the second schedule property to her by way of the sale deed, dated 14.11.1990, she is entitled to the said property and hence, sought for the declaration as regards the said property. Further, according to the plaintiff, if the Court, for any reason, comes to the conclusion that the gift deed, dated 24.04.1982, said to have been executed in favour of the deceased Kaja Mohideen, is valid, Fathima Beevi, who is the mother of the deceased Kaja Mohideen, is entitled to 1/6th share in the property concerned and the plaintiff as the purchaser of the property concerned is entitled to 1/6th share and hence, alternatively, sought for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the property concerned.

5. The case of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants contending that Fathima Beevi and her son had been living under the same roof and out of the love and affection, Fathima Beevi had executed the gift deed, dated 24.04.1982 in favour of Kaja Mohideen and living with Kaja Mohideen all along and accordingly, she had reserved the possession of the property during her lifetime and hence, there is no occasion for the delivery of the property to Kaja Mohideen and the gift deed, dated 24.04.1982, is true and valid and it is false to state that Fathima Beevi had sold the property in question to the plaintiff by way of the sale deed, dated 14.11.1990 and when Fathima Beevi had already gifted the property to the deceased Kaja Mohideen, the sale deed, dated 14.11.1990, is not true, valid and binding on the defendants. The defendants being the legal heirs of the deceased Kaja Mohideen are entitled to the property by way of the gift deed, dated 24.04.1982, and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain any of the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

6. With the above said pleadings, the parties went for trial and it is found that the following issues were framed by the Court below for determination:

(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled t