A gift, once completed and accepted, is irrevocable unless specific legal conditions for revocation are satisfied, as per the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2023 This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in R.F.A.No.88/2004 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara, which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.207/2000 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara.

2. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit is one for declaration of tile, possession putting up boundaries and also for injunction. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). Plaintiff obtained plaint schedule property by virtue of Settlement Deed No.899/93 executed by his father, the 5th defendant. Defendants 1 to 4 are his siblings. Defendants 1 to 4 were also given shares under the Settlement Deed. Plaintiff took possession of the property and is enjoying the same. In 1994 plaintiff constructed a residential building in the scheduled property and is residing therein with family. The plaint schedule property is separated from the neighbouring properties by survey stones and temporary boundary bunds. The suit has been filed when the defendants attempted to trespass upon the plaint schedule property and destroy the boundary bunds.

3. Defendants filed written statement denying that plaintiff obtained title and possession over the plaint schedule property by virtue of Settlement Deed No.899/93. Plaintiff mutated the property influencing the revenue authorities. Execution of Settlement Deed No.899/93 by the 5th defendant is admitted. Possession of property has not been transferred though Ext.A1 Settlement Deed was executed. 5th defendant is in possession of the entire property. He has cancelled the Settlement Deed and executed another settlement deed in favour of defendants 1 to 4. So the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree on the strength of Ext.A1 settlement deed.

4. PWs 1 and 2 examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. DW1 examined from side of the defendants. (Exts.C1 to C3 were also marked).

5. The learned trial judge on evaluating the facts, circumstances and evidence found that Ext.A1 Settlement Deed has come into effect and plaintiff got title and possession over the plaint schedule property subject to the life interest of the 5th defendant. Hence, the suit is decreed as prayed for. Against which, the defendants filed appeal and the first appellate court by the impugned judgment found that Ext.A1 is not a valid gift and no right, title or interest was devolved upon the plaintiff based upon Ext.A1. Hence the judgment and decree passed by the court below is reversed and suit is dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court the plaintiff approaches this Court in Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law has been formulated. Is the finding of the lower appellate court that Ext.A1, Gift Deed has not taken effect merely because the donor chose to retain a right to take income from the property during his lifetime, is correct.

7. Notice was issued to the respondents. Lower court records were called for and both sides were heard.

8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the gift deed Ext.A1 has already been acted upon by the plaintiff and he has paid tax by effecting mutation and constructed a building in the plaint schedule property and he is enjoying the property. It is also his contention that Ext.A4 sale deed was executed by the 5th defendant, father along with one of his siblings and sold a portion of the property covered by Ext.A1 gift deed and hence the 5th defendant is estopped from contending that the gift has not come into effect.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand fully supports the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

10. On perusing Ext.A1 gift deed, it could be seen that the recitals in Ext.A1 would clearly go to show that the ownership of the respective sharers provided