An oral gift of immovable property is not legally valid without a registered instrument under Hindu law, reiterating the necessity of following formal legal requirements for property transfers.

Dated this the 24 th day of July, 2024 This appeal stems from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cherthala dated 09.01.2004 in O.S.

No.6/1998, as per which, a suit for partition was allowed, negating the claim for exclusive title set up by the 7 th defendant on the basis of an oral gift.

The 7 th defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The essential pleadings are as follows:

The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the premise that the plaint schedule properties belong to one Balakrishnan Pillai @ Balakrishnan Nair, who died unmarried, issueless and intestate. Upon his death, the scheduled properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6, who are the siblings of late Balakrishnan Pillai, each being entitled to one-seventh share in the scheduled properties. The 7 th defendant was impleaded for the reason that, he was the nominee to one treasury deposit of late Balakrishnan Pillai. The plaintiff sought for partition separating his one-seventh share in the scheduled property.

3. Defendants 2 to 6 filed written statement accepting the plaint averments, however, seeking separation of their one-seventh share each in the scheduled properties.

4. The 7 th defendant is the son of 1 st defendant.

Defendants 1 and 7 filed a written statement contenting inter alia that, all the scheduled properties were not standing in the name of Balakrishnan Pillai at the time of his death. He gifted the properties to the 7 th defendant and the properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the 7 th defendant, accordingly. A contention is seen raised to the effect that the father of Balakrishnan Pillai by name Sivarama Panicker passed away in the year 1960, when Balakrishnan Pillai was only 20 years old and he was taken care of by the 1 st defendant, for the purpose of his upbringing. Other siblings (plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6) were inimical to Balakrishnan Pillai and that he was even physically assaulted by them. The 7 th defendant was treated by Balakrishnan Pillai as his own son, for which reason, he gifted the properties to the 7 th defendant.

Balakrishnan Pillai had fixed deposits in the treasury savings account, as also, his pension account, wherein, the 7 th respondent was nominated as nominee, in which capacity the amounts standing in the name of Balakrishnan Pillai were withdrawn by the 7 th defendant. On such premise, the plaint averments were denied and defendants 1 and 7 sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff had not adduced any evidence. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked and the 7 th defendant was examined as DW1. Exts.X1 to X4 were marked as third party exhibits.

6. On an analysis of the facts evidence and probabilities of the case, the learned Sub Judge decreed the suit, eschewing the contention of defendants 1 and 7 that the scheduled properties were gifted to the 7 th defendant. The learned Sub Judge found that the gift of an immovable property has to be by virtue of a registered document, without which, no interest will pass to a donee. Since the oral gift was claimed to be of the year, 1994, the question of adverse possession and limitation does not arise, is another finding of the learned Sub Judge. As regards nomination, the learned Sub Judge found that the same would only enable the 7 th defendant to collect the money from the bank or the treasury, as the case may be. The same will not confer any entitlement on the nominee to appropriate the amounts covered and that the nominee holds such amount in trust for other legal heirs, is what has been found by the learned Sub Judge. On such premise, the suit was decreed, directing division of the scheduled properties into seven equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The decree also directed that the plaintiff will be entitled to recover possession of the property allotted to him from the 7 th defendant. As regards the amount in the credit of late Balakrishnan Pillai in his treasury account, which is described as