Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Defendant No.1 is an assignee from defendant No. 2, the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 3 to 5. The property in question was gifted to defendant No. 2 by her brother as per Ext. Al reserving a right to receive Rs. 100/-. That right was also relinquished and given in favour of defendant No. 2 as per Ext. A2. Thus defendant No. 2 became absolute owner of the property. At the time of gift plaintiffs 1 to 4 were not born to defendant No. . In other words plaintiffs 1 to 4 are children born to defendant No. 2 after the said gift deed. Defendant No. 2 later assigned a portion of property to defendant No.1 as per Ext. A3 on 26.10.77. The plaintiffs, the children born to defendant No. 2 after the date of the said gift, have come up with this partition suit. Defendants 2 to 5 remained ex-parte. Defendant No. 1, the assignee from defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit. His contention was that the plaintiffs did not have any right over the property gifted to defendant No. 2 when she was minor. That gift shall be covered in terms of S.22 of the Travancore Nair Act (2 of 1101) in which case the children born to donee will not have any right to the properties. So the plaintiffs 1 to 4 cannot seek partition. Defendant No. 2 was perfectly justified, as she was only a minor unmarried girl when the gift was so made, to dispose of the property as it was her own. But the Courts below did not accept the contention of defendant No.1 and decreed the suit concurrently. Therefore, the Second Appeal at the instance of defendant No.1 raising a question of law as to whether the said gifts, Ext. Al and Ext. A2, are not covered by S.22 and by reason of such gift made before her marriage, whether the defendant No. 2 shall not become the absolute owner of the property so gifted. Arguments were addressed based on this question of law. 2. Al and Ext. A2, are not covered by S.22 and by reason of such gift made before her marriage, whether the defendant No. 2 shall not become the absolute owner of the property so gifted. Arguments were addressed based on this question of law. 2. .22 of the said Act reads as follows: "Property acquired by gift or bequest by the wife or widow or child or children from the husband or father, as the case may be, after Regulation 1 of 1088 came into force, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the instrument of gift or bequest, if any, belong to the wife or widow and each of the children in equal shares." Thus it is clear that the said provision takes in a gift or bequest made by husband or father in favour of wife or widow or child or children. In such case necessarily, the children born to the donees after the date of gift cannot claim any right over the property gifted. Admittedly this is a gift in favour of defendant No. 2 from her brother and not father. Necessarily gift as per Ext. Al and A2 are beyond the purview of S.22. There is no provision in the said Act giving a different treatment, as contained in S.22, to a gift made by any other near relation. When there is no such different treatment, as the said Act covers the succession in terms of Marumakkathayam law, the property gifted as per Exts. Al and A2 shall also be taken as the property in favour of the Thavazhy of defendant No. 2. When it thus becomes the Thavazhy property, necessarily all the children as on the date of enforcement of Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act (Act 30 of 1976) will be entitled to equal rights over the said property. The relevant date of enforcement of the said Act is 1.12.76. Ext. A3 was effected by defendant No. 2 far later than that date. As on the date of Ext. A3, defendant No. 2 did not have any right at all to assign the said property in full in favour of the defendant No. 1. That sale deed will ensure to the benefit of defendant No.1 only to the extent of share of defendant No. 2 as on that date, namely 1.12.76, on the basis of equitable relief. A3, defendant No. 2 did not have any right at all to assign the said property in full in favour of the defendant No. 1. That sale deed will ensure to the benefit of defendant No.1 only to the extent of share of defendant No. 2 as on that date, namely 1.12.76, on the basis of equitable relief. 3.The second question of law is whether the property gifted in favour of defendant No. 2 by her brother when she was an unmarried minor girl could be treated as her own property. Even if it is taken as so when she attains majority, she becomes head of a Thavazhy. Whatever property held by her will enure to the benefit of entire members of the Thavazhy, certainly it will be covered by Travancore Nair Act until the enforcement of Act 30 of 1976. Necessarily, the decree in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 4 to grant them partition as claimed in the suit as concurrently found by the Courts below cannot be interfered with as the answers of the questions of law based on the above discussion are against the appellant. Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.