IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008/10TH MAGHA 1929 AS.No. 199 of 1999() -------------------- AGAINST O.S.NO.69/1980 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------- 1. SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM, BRANCH NO.1103, POOTHOTTA (CONSTITUENT OF THE ARUVIPURAM S.N.D.P. YOGAM, QUILON REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT OF TRAVANCORE (UNDER SECTION 26 OF REGULATION 1 OF 1063 OF ' TRAVANCORE, AND IS NOW GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) BY ITS PRESENT SECRETARY P.A.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 47, E.D.POSTMASTER, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PARAYEDATHU, POOTHOTTA P.O., MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (*)2. K.K.DAMODARAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NEPHEW OF K.C.KUNJAN PANICKER OF KOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT KOCHAKATHOOTTU, SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) (**)3. K.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NEPHEW OF K.C.KUNJAN PANICKER OF KOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) 4. KARUNAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NEPHEW OF NARAYANA PANICKER OF KOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL.5TH APPELLANT: 5. SREEDEVI, W/O. K.KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNA VIHAR, SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (**)THE THIRD APPELLANT DIED AND ADDITIONAL 5TH APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS THE LR'S OF DECEASED THIRD APPELLANT AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.338/2007 DATED 1.2.2007. AS NO.199/1999 2 ADDL.6TH APPELLANT: 6. JAYACHANDRAN, D., S/O.LATE K.K.DAMODARAN, NEPHEW OF K.C.KUNJAN PANICKER OF KOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT KOCHAKATHOOTTU, SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (*)THE SECOND APPELLANT DIED. THE ADDITIONAL 6TH APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER IN IA NO.3083/2007 DATED 17.8.2007. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 10, 12 TO 16 LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE 11TH DEFENDANT AND LEGAL HEIRS OF DEFENDANT NO.17: ------------- 1. AMMINI, D/O.OOLI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARANAMKODATHU HOUSE, ELAVALLI SOUTH P.O., PARAPPUR. 2. JANAKI, D/O.EDAYAODIYIL KUMARI, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENKAVUTHAZHATHU, POOTHOTTA P.O., SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 4. VAMANAN, S/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 30, -DO- -DO- 5. PUSHKARAN, S/O.JANANKI, AGED ABOUT 27, -DO- -DO- 6. OMANA, D/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 25 AND W/O.MURALI, KULATHUMPURATHU VEEDU, VYTTILA, COCHIN 19. 7. DEVAYANI, D/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 22 AND W/O.T.K.HARILAL, THIRUNILATHU VEEDU, VYTTILA, COCHIN 19. 8. INDIRA, D/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 20, RESIDING AT PUTHENKAVUTHAZHATHU, POOTHOTTA P.O., SOUTH PARUR. 9. SATHYABHAMA, D/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 10. UNNI, S/O.JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN THE 2ND DEFENDANT, -DO- -DO- 11. V.SANKARAN, AGED 72 YEARS, NEPHEW OF VELAYUDHA PANICKER OF KOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT GOVINDA MANDIRAM, KATTAKADA, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT (DIED) 12. DEVAYANI, AGED ABOUT 55, WIFE OF K.K.GOVINDAN, PANANGAMPALLIL, SHERTHALLAI, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. AS NO.199/1999 3 13. VALSALA, D/O.DEVAYANI, AGED ABOUT 35, -DO- -DO- 14. ANANDAN, S/O.DEVAYANI, AGED 33, -DO- -DO- 15. CHANDRIKA, D/O.DEVAYANI, AGED 29, -DO- -DO- 16. NANDAKUMARI, D/O.DEVAYANI, AGED 20, -DO- -DO- 17. K.K.KUNJAN, RETIRED EXCISE INSPECTOR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NEPHEW OF K.C.KUNJAN PANICKER OF KOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT ALUMKAL HOUSE, SOUTH PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT TO REPRESENT ALL MEMBERS OF THE KOCHIPARAMBIL FAMILY, SOUTH PARUR, POOTHOTTA (DIED) 18. SARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60, HOUSEWIFE, W/O.V.SANKARAN, RESIDING AT GOVINDA MANDIRAM, KATTAKADA, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, KATTAKADA P.O. 19. BALARAMAN, S/O.V.SANKARAN, AGED 45, GOVINDA MANDIRAM, KATTAKADA P.O., NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, S.N.COLLEGE, ALATHUR. 20. RAVI, ADVOCATE, AGED 42, S/O.V.SANKARAN, GOVINDA MANDIRAM, KATTAKADA P.O. (*)21. SASI, AGED ABOUT 40, EMPLOYED IN KSRTC, S/O.V.SANKARAN, -DO- (*)22. SARADA, AGED ABOUT 48, HOUSEWIFE, D/O.V.SANKARAN, -DO- -DO- (*)23. SUMA, AGED ABOUT 38, ENGINEER, D/O.V.SANKARAN, -DO- -DO- (*)24. RAMA, AGED ABOUT 38, HOUSEWIFE, D/O.V.SANKARAN, -DO- -DO- 25. K.K.DHANADEVAN, AGED 52, S/O.K.K.KUNJAN, ALUMGAL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O., VIA UDAYAMPEROOR, PIN 682 307, MANAKUNNAM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 26. K.K.VALSAMMA PRASANNAN, AGED ABOUT 50, D/O.K.K.KUNJAN, VATHIAKKATTU VEEDU, PERUMBALAM P.O., VIA CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 27. K.K.SOMANATHAN, AGED ABOUT 46, ALUNGAL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O., VIA UDAYAMPEROOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK - 682 307. 28. K.K.SATHEESAN, AGED ABOUT 43, S/O.K.K.KUNJAN, ALUNGAL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O., VIA UDAYAMPEROOR 682 307. 29. SATHEEDEVI PRADEEPAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA (VIA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. AS NO.199/1999 4 30. LAKSHMIKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 68, W/O.LATE K.K.KUNJAN, ALUNGAL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O., VIA UDAYAMPEROOR 682 307. (*)R21 TO R24 REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 30.1.2008 IN IA NO.3896/2007. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) & SHRI R.PARTHASARATHY THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2007 ALONG WITH A.S.No.449/1999, THE COURT ON 30.01.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: “C.R.” K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- A.S.Nos199 of 1999 & 449 of 1999 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT These two appeals arise from the decree and judgment passed by the court below in O.S.No.69/1980. A.S.No.199/1999 was filed by the plaintiffs challenging that part of the decree by which their prayer for recovery of plaint B and C schedule properties was disallowed. A.S.No.449/1999 was filed by defendants 2 to 10 and 12 to 16 challenging a finding of the Land Tribunal that they are not entitled to get fixity of tenure over 69 cents of land which is part of B schedule. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the court below. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that B and C schedule properties and the temples situated in B schedule are in the ownership and possession of first plaintiff and defendants 2 to 10 have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over B and C schedule properties and also for directing defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 17 not to disturb the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over B and C schedule properties and in the alternative for recovery of possession of B and C schedule properties and temples from defendants 2 to 10 with mesne profits. AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 2 :- 3. The following are the material averments in the plaint. Plaint A, B and C schedule properties originally belonged to Kochiparambil Family, an Ezhava Family following Marumakkathayam law and governed by Travancore Ezhava Act. Plaint A schedule was given to Poothotta Ezhava Samajam by the Kochiparambil Family. Ownership and possession of A schedule property vested in the said Samajam. Subsequently the right, title and interest of the Samajam devolved upon the first plaintiff SNDP Branch at Poothotta. In plaint A schedule there is a Shiva temple in which deity was installed by Sree Narayana Guru Swami in 1068 M.E.. A high school and office buildings owned by the first plaintiff are also situated in that property. The Government Primary School is functioning in a building put up by the Government with the permission of first plaintiff. Though the area of A schedule is stated as 2 acres 97 cents in the revenue records the actual extent is 2 acres 30 cents. It is owned and possessed by the first plaintiff and no one have any manner of title, right or possession over it. On 4.11.1098 a partition was effected by the Kochiparambil Family as per document No.4027/1098. The Family was divided into eight branches. I schedule in the partition deed was kept as a common property. A reading of the description would give an impression that plaint A schedule was also included in that schedule but long prior to that date A schedule property was given to the first plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest. The property included in I schedule was plaint B and C schedules. It was provided that the income from B and C schedule AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 3 :- should be utilised for the maintenance of the common ancestress Cheerapennu and for the annual thatching of common building. It was also provided that income derived from the temple situated in B schedule shall be utilised to meet the expenses of ceremonies and day today affairs of that temple. It was further provided that after Cheerappennu's death the eldest male member of the family should keep possession of the property and utilise the income from B and C schedule properties for the conduct of the ceremonies of the temple. He should maintain proper accounts and the same should be scrutinised and approved by the seniormost members of the thavazhies. Rest of the income should be utilised for common purposes. It was also provided that if any documents were to be executed the same should be executed by all executents of the partition deed together. B and C schedule properties were in the possession of the eldest male member of the family who was taking income from the properties and the temple and utilising the same for temple and other purposes as per the partition deed. In the year 1124 Shri K.C.Kunjan Panicker was the eldest member of the family. He was managing B and C schedule properties. At that time Shri Chennan Panicker who was a junior member of the family was a priest of the temple. Late Kunjan Panicker allowed Chennan Panicker to manage B and C schedule properties. Chennan Panicker was managing B and C schedule properties and taking income for the purpose of meeting the expenses of temple and its upkeep. Kunjan Panicker executed document No.2015/1124 of Vaikom registry in favour of AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 4 :- Chennan Panicker in respect of plaint C schedule property. Chennan Panicker was directed to pay Rs.18 and 4 chakrams for the purpose of temple to Kunjan Panicker and to obtain receipt and also to pay tax to the Government. It was averred that the lease deed was purported to be for C schedule property alone. Though the extent was shown as one acre 51 cents, the actual area was only one acre 15 cents and even from that one acre 15 cents some trees were excluded. It was further averred that the lease deed was a bogus and invalid one as it was beyond the powers of Karanavan. Lease deed was never intended to be acted upon and was never acted upon. There was no demarcating boundary between B and C schedule properties. C schedule properties are also necessary for the proper conduct of the temple and its affairs and ceremonies. A building at south- western portion of C schedule was always used for the residence of the temple priest. Such residence was necessary for the proper and efficient services in the temple. It was averred that C schedule property continued to be in the possession and enjoyment by the temple and family in spite of the lease deed. Chennan Panicker never paid any rent to the Karanavan. No receipts were also issued. Chennan Panicker never claimed any interest on the basis of the lease. B schedule to the plaint is the area over which the temple and appurtenant structures and land are situated. The main deity is “Bhadrakali”. There are other deities also. There are pattambalam, bhajanapura, office building and a shop building situated in the property. The residence of the priest is situated in C schedule property. There is a AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 5 :- temple tank and well in B schedule property. There is thookkathara also in front of the temples. Kochiparambil family got itself divided into various branches. Most of the members are residing far away from the temple and its properties. Since it was difficult to manage the affairs of the temple and properties a decision was taken to entrust the temple and its properties to the first plaintiff for management as the first plaintiff is an institution established and proved for the good and welfare of the community in particular. The 11th defendant who was the eldest male member of the family requested the first plaintiff to take up the temple and its properties. All available members of the family together had executed a gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff by document No.163/1979 dated 15.1.1979. It was executed by ten members. Executants 8 and 10 alone were the surviving executants of the partition deed No.4027/1098. As per the said gift deed the entire B and C schedule properties were given possession to the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff was taking income and attending to the agricultural operations in the properties. The keys of the temples were in the possession of defendants 2 to 10. Shri Gopala Panicker became the eldest male member of the family in July, 1976. He was unable to manage the properties and the temple directly. He also allowed Chennan Panicker to look after the properties and temple. Gopala Panicker entrusted keys of the temple with Chennan Panicker. Thereafter second plaintiff Damodara Panicker managed the temple and properties under Gopala Panicker. Gopala Panicker died in 1978. Defendants 3 to 5 continued to be in the AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 6 :- management. After the gift deed first plaintiff informed defendants 3 to 5 that thereafter they need not manage the temple and its properties. But they did not handover the keys to the first plaintiff. Three more persons of Kochiparambil family executed a gift deed in favour of first plaintiff on 24.5.1979 and some other members executed another gift deed in favour of first defendant on 7.6.1979. Chennan Panicker died in the year 1976. His estate was inherited by his daughter first defendant. Chennan Panicker had illicit intimacy with the second defendant during the life time of his wife. Defendants 3 to 10 are the children of Chennan Panicker through the second defendant. Defendants 2 to 10 are not the legal representatives or heirs of Chennan Panicker. They were living with him during his last days and hence they happened to be the residents of the building situated at the south-western portion of C schedule property. Defendants 1 to 10 have no manner of right, title or interest in the plaint schedule properties. 11th defendant is the senior-most member of Kochiparambil family. 12th defendant claims that she is also a member of the Kochiparambil family. Defendants 13 to 16 are her children. 17th defendant is also a member of the Kochiparambil family. There are numerous members in the family. So plaintiffs had instituted the suit in a representative capacity and 17th defendant was impleaded as representative of the members of the family. Proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In that proceedings a receiver was appointed and he took possession of the properties from the AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 7 :- plaintiffs. There are four buildings in B and C schedule properties which belong to the temple. Those buildings and land are appurtenances to the temple and they are necessary for the convenience and purpose of the temple. Defendants 1 to 10 are not members of the Kochiparambil family though Chennan Panicker was a member of the family. Since B and C schedule properties are trust properties no strangers apart from the members of the family are entitled to have interest on the basis of inheritance. Even otherwise the first plaintiff is entitled to be in joint possession along with other co-owners. If it is found that defendants 1 to 10 have any manner of right plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of the same. D schedule movables belonged to temple and those movables are necessary for the use and purpose of the temple. Since the 12th defendant had filed O.S.No.247/1979 challenging the rights of the first plaintiff, herself and her children are impleaded in the present suit. 4. Defendants 2 to 10 and 12 to 17 filed a joint written statement denying all the averments raised in the plaint. Following were the main contentions. The plaint schedule properties belonged to an ancient Ezhava tarawad at Poothotta by name 'Kochiparambil Tarawad'. The defendants are the members of that tarawad. Plaint A schedule was a part of the Kochiparambil Tarawad and possession vested with the tarawad. There is a temple in A schedule property wherein the idol of Shiva was installed by Sreenarayana Guru Swami. With the consent of then Karanavan of Kochiparambil Tarawad a AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 8 :- building was put up in which Government Primary School is functioning. The properties of Kochiparambil Tarawad were partitioned in the year 1098 M.E. under deed No.4027/1098. The suit properties were not divided but were kept as common properties of the tarawad. The suit properties were included in Schedule I of the above said document. There was also a stipulation in the said partition deed that if any document is to be executed in future with respect to the I schedule properties all members of the Tarawad should jointly execute the same. The suit properties were in the possession of the eldest male member of the Tarawad and he managed the properties utilising the income derived from the properties. One Kunjan Panicker was the eldest member of the Kochiparambil Tarawad during the year 1124. Chennan Panicker was the priest (poojari) of the temple. Kunjan Panicker executed lease deed No.2015/1124 of Vaikom Sub Registry in favour of Chennan Panicker in respect of one acre 51 cents of property comprised in plaint B and C schedule properties. Thereafter Chennan Panicker was in absolute possession and management of the properties. The lease deed executed in favour of Chennan Panicker was a valid document. It was in tune with the terms of partition deed and did not violate any of the provisions of the same. In plaint B schedule properties there are three temples wherein different deities are installed. Two temples are on the southern and northern sides respectively of the B schedule property and the third temple is on the north-eastern side. Apart from the temples there is one bhajanapura and office building in the B AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 9 :- schedule property. The bhajanapura is not used for any purpose and remain closed always. Defendants are residing in their own houses situated in plaint B and C schedule properties. Though some of the members of the tarawad are residing at distant places that will not affect the proper management of the temple. Members of the SNDP Union Poothotta had moved resolutions in the general body meeting of the yogam condemning the acts of plaintiffs in interfering with the smooth running of the temples. The members of the tarawad never made any request to first plaintiff to take over management of the temple. 11th defendant has no authority to request the first plaintiff or anybody else to take over the temple and its properties. He is not a member of the Kochiparambil Tarawad and his name does not appear anywhere in the family partition deed No.4027/1098. Gift deeds referred to in the plaint are invalid documents. Very few members of the tarawad had joined in the execution of gift deeds that too in violation of the directions contained in the family partition deed. Chennan Panicker died in the year 1979. Second defendant is his widow and defendants 3 to 10 are his children and they are heirs of late Chennan Panicker. Defendants 2 to 10 were living with Chennan Panicker in the building in the south-western portion of C schedule property and they have absolute right title and interest over the plaint schedule properties. First defendant is a stranger and does not have any manner of right, title or interest in the plaint schedule properties. The 12th defendant is a member of the Kochiparambil family and defendants 13 to 16 are AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 10 :- her children. The 17th defendant is a stranger to family and does not have any manner of right, title or interest in plaint schedule properties. After the death of Chennan Panicker defendants 2 to 10 are in possession of the properties. 12th defendant filed O.S.No.247/1979 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and that suit was also pending. On account of the difficulties caused by first plaintiff defendants 2 to 10 filed a petition to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated. A receiver was appointed and the receiver so appointed took possession of the properties. Since Chennan Panicker was a member of the Kochiparambil family, his widow and children are also members of that family. The movables mentioned in the plaint D schedule are in the unlawful custody of first plaintiff. Those movables are necessary for the day today affairs of the temple. Subsequently defendants 2 to 10 and 12 to 16 filed additional written statement contending that in addition to the property covered by the registered lease deed there was an oral lease in respect of 69 cents of property comprised in B schedule property. They were entitled to lease hold rights over two acres 20 cents of property over the scheduled property. 5. 11th defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. It was admitted that plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for in the plaint. 6. 17th defendant also filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. It was contended that at the time of execution of partition deed AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 11 :- No.4027/1098 he was only four years old and his mother Ammukutty was one of the executants. It was also contended that minors did not join the execution of the partition deed but only such minors of the tarawad who formed separate thavazhi without majors alone joined in the execution of the partition deed. It was admitted that long ago tarawad gave A schedule property to a local social organisation of Ezhavas named, Ezhava Samajam the predecessor-in-interest of the first plaintiff Yogam. It was also admitted that the plaint B and C schedule properties are the site and uppertenant lands of the family temple of the Kochiparambil family known by the name 'Puthenkavu Bhagavathi temple'. The entire scheduled properties are honeycombed with various temples and connected structures. The temple and temple properties are to be managed by the eldest male member of the family. Lease deed mentioned in the plaint was bogus and invalid and hence the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as prayed for. 7. In view of the contention raised by the defendants 2 to 10 that they are entitled to get fixity of tenure the matter was referred to Land Tribunal. Land Tribunal found that the defendants failed to prove the oral lease pleaded by them in respect of the 69 cents. It further found that there is no demarcating boundary separating the 69 cents and one acre 51 cents of land. It was further held that the applicants who are residing in the disputed land have the right to reside there under Section 2(25) of Kerala Land Reforms Act since they are residing in that property without any obstruction until the appointment of the receiver. It further found that AS NOS.199 & 449/1999 -: 12 :- if any of the residential buildings of the applicants comes within the 69 cents of land those applicants are not liable to be evicted from their residence. Land Tribunal also found that in respect of one acre 51 cents of land covered by lease deed defendants 2 to 10 are cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure and returned the records received from the civil court with those findings. The learned Subordinate Judge found that with effect from 1.12.1976 a notional partition took place in Kochiparambil family in view of the commencement of Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act and all members of the family become co-owners in respect of the suit properties. Court below rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that it is not necessary that all the members of the family to join in the execution of the gift deed. It also found that B and C schedule are lying as compact area and no relief of recovery in respect of the shares of co-owners who assigned their right can be granted. Trial court found that defendants 2 to 10 are not entitled to get a share