Judgment :- 1. The property involved in this litigation originally belonged to one Ukkayyakutty Umma, the mother of defendants 1 to 3 and the wife of the 4th defendant Ukkayyakutty Umma had another daughter by name Katheessa. After the death of Ukkayyakutty Umma, Katheesa also died. Thus the estate fell to defendants 1 to 4. The 4th defendant, who inherited a share in Katheesa's estate with respect to the suit property executed Ext. A9 conveyance in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in this case. Subsequently the 4th defendant conveyed his entire share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, his grandson, under Exts. Aland A2. The suit was instituted for partition and recovery of the plaintiff's share on the strength of Exts Aland A2. Defendants 1 to 3, who mainly contested the suit, contended that the 4th defendant did not derive any share in the estate of Ukkayyakutty Umma since their marital relationship came to an end prior to the death of Ukkayyakutty Umma and that Exts Aland A2 are invalid being gift of Musha property. These contentions were repelled by both the courts below, and a preliminary decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff. That has led to this appeal by defendants 1 to 3. 2. In view of the concurrent decision of the courts below regarding the subsistence of the marital relationship between Ukkayyakutty Umma with the 4th defendant, it is no longer open to the appellants to contend that the 4th defendant did not derive any share in the suit property. I have no hesitation to confirm the decision of the courts below to the effect that the 4th defendant also obtained a share in the suit property on the death of his wife Ukkayyakutty Umma. 3. The only other question that survives for decision is whether Exts. Aland A2 should fail because they constitute a gift 'musha' property. Musha means undistributed or common; in legal language it refers to undivided portions of property and in particular to such property which forms the subject matter of a gift. That in a general sense the property covered by Exts. Aland A2 partakes the nature f 'musha' cannot be seriously disputed. Musha means undistributed or common; in legal language it refers to undivided portions of property and in particular to such property which forms the subject matter of a gift. That in a general sense the property covered by Exts. Aland A2 partakes the nature f 'musha' cannot be seriously disputed. But the further question is whether because of that broad characteristic of the suit property Exts Aland A2 should fail by the application of the rule that the gift of 'musha'property is not valid unless it was followed by partition and delivery of possession of the share gifted. I may for the sake of convenience refer to the whole principle as the 'musha' rule. The real scope of this rule had come up for the consideration of courts from considerable time back. As far as I could see the rigidity of the rule has been relaxed by judicial pronouncements from two different angles. One line of precedents beginning with the decision of the Privy Council in Sheik Muhammed Mumtaz Ahmad v. Subaida Jan (16 K. A. 205) and referred to in Hqyatuddin v, Abdul Gani (AIR. 1976 Bombay 23) and Khader v. Kunhamina (1970 KLT. 237) was inclined to treat the whole rule as archaic and not consistent with the modern notions of rights over property. I do not think that for the purpose of this case I must examine how far this rule must fail for its alleged conservative garb because I feel that the other line of decisions carving out innumerable exceptions to the rule may perhaps set at rest the dispute raised in this case. 4. Another line of decisions deals with cases where the rule has not been applied and holding that the concerned case is an exception'Musha' is derived from "Saayu'u" which means confusion The confusion contemplated appears to me as the probable confusion regarding the enjoyment of the property by other co-sharers as a result of the gift of a share by one or more co-sharers. If by the very nature of the property or by the relationship of the contracting parties the gift of a definite share cannot lead to a confusion of enjoyment in future, I think, the 'musha' rule shall not be applied with all its rigidity. If by the very nature of the property or by the relationship of the contracting parties the gift of a definite share cannot lead to a confusion of enjoyment in future, I think, the 'musha' rule shall not be applied with all its rigidity. The exceptions laid down by judicial precedents indicate that if the gift of the undivided share cannot affect the normal enjoyment of the property or if a physical partition may detrimentally affect the enjoyment of the property a gift shall not fail because it is the transfer of an undivided share in the property. In this case the 4th defendant had already assigned the share he got in the estate of his daughter Katheesa in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under Ext. A9. That too was a transfer without physical partition. The defendants have no case that by Ext. A9 confusion has been crept in the matter of enjoyment of the property. If that be so, one is tempted to ask whether Exts. Aland A2 may lead to a confusion not hither to felt in the enjoyment of the property by the co-owners. Apart form pressing into service the 'musha' rule the defendants have not specifically pleaded that by Exts. Al and A2 confusion will be caused in the matter of enjoyment of the undivided property. In the absence of the necessary facts constituting the basis upon which the 'musha' rule can be applied to the suit property, I am not prepared to hold that Exts. Al and A2 should be avoided by the application of the 'musha' rule. 5. The appellants have no case that the gift of'musha' property is void ab initio because it is well-settled that the gift can be perfected by a subsequent partition and delivery of possession of the share dealt with by the gift deed. There are exceptions to the above principle of subsequent division. This aspect was considered by the Madras High Court in the decision reported in In re Mohi-deen Sahib (AIR 1957 Madras 436) where it was held that "where the donor has made a gift of his entire interest to the donee which was a share in a property it is not possible for the donor to voluntarily effect a division and then deliver bis share to the donee". In such cases the right of the donee to sue for partition was also declared in that decision. The decision of the Madras High Court was followed by this court in Avulia Hajee v. Mammu (1958 KLT.1184). The right of a donee in similar circumstances to sue for partition has also been recognised in Hayatuddin v Abdul Gani (AIR. 1976 Bombay 23) and S. A. Hussain v. Tayabba Begam (AIR. 1973 Allahabad 54). The question raised in this case is very similar to the one decided by the Madras High Court. The 4th defendant has conveyed his entire share to the plaintiff by Exts. Aland A2, and the instant suit for partition by the plaintiff is perfectly competent. A decree was properly given to the plaintiff. I find no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.