The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a gift deed depends on the fulfillment of its conditions, including acceptance by the donee and the transfer of absolute title from the donor.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in SA(MD).No.300 of 2004: Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil made in A.S.No.90 of 2003 dated 10.02.2004 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.41 of 1992 dated 06.01.2003 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.

Prayer in SA(MD).No.306 of 2004: Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of 2/33 SA.(MD).Nos.300 and 306 of 2004 the Court of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil made in A.S.No.86 of 2003 dated 10.02.2004 setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.52 of 1997 dated 06.01.2003 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.)

Common Judgment:

S.A(MD).No.300 of 2004:

The above second appeal arises out of O.S.No.41 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The said suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title over 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for recovery of possession of 'A' schedule property from the defendants. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the trial Court. Defendants 1, 2 and 6 filed A.S.No.90 of 2003 before the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The learned First Appellate Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed SA(MD).No.300 of 2004.

2. S.A(MD).No.306 of 2004:

The above second appeal arises out of O.S.No.52 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. As against the same, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed A.S.No. 86 of 2003 before the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The learned District Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the third defendant had filed SA(MD).No.306 of 2004.

3. Pleadings in SA(MD).No.300 of 2004:

3(i). The said suit was filed by one Ayyappan Nair contending that the suit 'A' schedule as well as 'B' schedule properties originally belonged to his maternal uncle namely Krishna Pillai. According to the plaintiff, his parents had passed away, when he was very young and he was brought up by his maternal uncle. Out of love and affection, the said Krishna Pillai has executed a gift deed of 'A' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on 07.02.1981 under Exhibit A3. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of 'B' schedule property. At the instance of his uncle Krishna Pillai, the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in favour of Krishna Pillai for 'B' schedule property on 07.02.1981 under Exhibit A1. On the strength of the said sale deed, the said Krishna Pillai has executed a gift deed in favour of his sister Rudrani Amma under Exhibit A6 on 07.02.1981.

3(ii).The plaintiff has further contended that on various occasions when Krishna Pillai had fallen ill, he and his wife have taken care of Krishna Pillai by admitting him in hospital. The plaintiff was maintaining very cordial relationship with Krishna Pillai. However, the first defendant who entered the house as servant maid had induced Krishna Pillai to cancel the gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and Krishna Pillai's sister Rudrani Amma. Accordingly, Krishna Pillai has executed a unilateral cancellation deed by cancelling Exhibit A3 gift deed and the said cancellation deed was registered on 12.07.1989 and marked as Exhibit B6. Thereafter, Krishna Pillai has executed a gift deed in favour of the first defendant under Exhibit B9 on 24.07.1989. The said Krishna Pillai had passed away on 31.01.1992 Based upon the gift deed under Exhibit B9, the first defendant has sold 'A' schedule property in favour of the sixth defendant under Exhibit B19 on 11.07.1996.