Three cents and the said hut was demarcated and given to the said George.
606 of 1993.
The possession of the property is handed over to you and you have accepted the same Defendants, however, on the premise that the said gift was an onerous one and the appellant did number fulfil the companyditions therefor, viz.,
Lakshmikutty, your mother, purchased the rights of George over the said three cents and the hut thereon vide registered document No.
Out of my love and affection for you and in view of the fact that you are my son and successor the said property having a value of Rs.
The said property was later gifted by her to you vide Document No.
Defendant No.
2214 of 1980.
1 mother of the appellant herein in favour of the appellant on or about 4.01.1984.
1,00,000/ at the time of marriage of his sister, cancelled the said deeds of gift by two documents executed on 15.06.1985.
2 Respondent No.
He was said to have been put in possession of the properties companyered by the deed of gift.
Appellant filed a suit inter alia for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit properties.
It was a registered document.
1 and 2 are the parents of the appellant herein.
The 11 cents of land, remaining after demarcating the abovesaid three cents from the 14 cents, namely the southern one half portion of the 28 cents that originally belonged to me, is still in my possession and enjoyment with all rights.
1 father of the appellant since deceased also executed a registered deed of gift dated 17.03.1984 in his favour which was marked as Exhibit A 2 before the learned Trial Judge relevant averments wherein were The said 28 cents was divided into two equal portions.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
A deed of gift was executed by Defendant No.
On the southern extreme side of the southern 14 cents after the said division there existed a kudikidappu hut of one Konnothu George.
failure to companytribute a sum of Rs.
20754 of 2003 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
78 of 1984.
Whether an averment made in the deed of gift in regard to handing over of possession is sufficient proof of acceptance thereof by the donee is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.07.2002 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in S.A. No.
Defendant Nos.
