1. The defendants are in appeal.

2. The suit was laid by the respondents for a declaration that Ext.A12 document executed by the first defendant, the father of the first respondent, cancelling Ext.A1 gift deed and Ext.A13 sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are null and void as well as for a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 to 5 to vacate the plaint schedule building and of prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the first plaintiff.

3. The plaintiffs allege that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the first defendant and his brother Bather as per Ext.P2 partition deed dated 25.5.1989 and the first defendant, after having obtained absolute possession and title over the plaint schedule property, executed Ext.A1 gift deed dated 25.5.1989 in favour of the first plaintiff and on the basis of the said gift deed, the first plaintiff had obtained title and possession over the plaint schedule property and that the first plaintiff has been enjoying the plaint schedule property absolutely. They further allege that defendants 2 and 3, who are her brothers, interfered with her possession and on 26.9.1998, the first defendant executed Ext.A12 deed cancelling Ext.A1 gift deed and thereafter he executed Ext.A13 sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant had no right to cancel Ext.A1 gift deed since the gift deed has been accepted by the first defendant and the same has become complete. They further allege that the first defendant had no legal right to execute Ext.A13 sale deed covering the suit property in favour of defendants 2 and 3.

4. Defendants 1 to 5, who resisted the suit, contended that defendants 1 to 4 are residing in the building situated in the suit property. According to them, Ext.A1 gift deed was executed by the first defendant in favour of the first plaintiff only for avoiding a crisis during the marriage of the first plaintiff. According to them, the gift deed had never come into effect and that the gift is not complete as per the provisions of the Mohammedan law. It was contended by the defendants that the physical possession in the plaint schedule property was never transferred to the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff went to the residence of her husband at Navaikulam after her marriage and occasionally she used to reside with the first defendant in the plaint schedule building. It was further contended that the first respondent took away the documents relating to the plaint schedule property from the building situated in the plaint schedule without the knowledge of anybody and they asserted that the gift deed has never come into force.

5. In the written statement, the defendants have incorporated a counter claim for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs from disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the defendants of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have filed a written statement to the said counter claim.

6. The trial court, after raising proper issues for trial, permitted both sides to adduce their evidence and at the trial PW1 and DW1 were examined. Exts.A1 to A13 and B1 to B4 were marked. The trial court, after considering the evidence, granted a decree as prayed for. The defendants, who are the appellants herein, took the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court. However, without success. It is with this background, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. The material question to be considered in this appeal is whether Ext.A1 gift deed has come into force on a valid acceptance. The parties being Muslims are governed by the Mahomedan law. A gift or 'hiba' which literally means 'giving away of such a thing from which the person in whose favour the gift deed is made may draw benefit'. 'Hiba' has been defined in Kanz al Daquiq in the following words:

"Hib