P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The defendants in a suit for mandatory injunction are the appellants. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The suit property belonged to Ebrahim, the father of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Ebrahim divorced the first defendant. After the divorce, the first defendant filed OS No. 124 of 2007 for a declaration of her right in the suit property and for a prohibitory injunction restraining Ebrahim from evicting her from the building in the suit property. The case set up by the first defendant in OS No. 124 of 2007 was that the suit property was acquired by Ebrahim making use of her money also. The case of the first defendant that the suit property was purchased making use of her money also was not accepted by the Court in OS No. 124 of 2007. Consequently, the declaration of title sought by the first defendant over the suit property was declined. The first defendant was, however, granted a decree in the said suit restraining Ebrahim from evicting her from the suit property otherwise than by due process of law. Later, Ebrahim filed OS No. 447 of 2007 for recovery of possession of suit property from the first defendant. During the pendency of the said suit, the suit property was transferred by Ebrahim to the plaintiff as per Ext. A6 gift. Since the suit property was gifted to the plaintiff, Ebrahim did not pursue OS No. 447 of 2007. Consequently, OS No. 447 of 2007 was dismissed as not pressed. The present suit was filed thereupon by the plaintiff seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to surrender vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendants resisted the suit. The contention raised by the defendants in the written statement was that Ext. A6 gift is invalid as the plaintiff has not obtained possession of the suit property from the donor as per the terms of the gift. The Trial Court rejected the contention raised by the defendants and decreed the suit. Though the matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants, the Appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the Trial Court. The defendants, who are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against them, have come up in this second appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Rasheeda Khatoon v. Ashiq Ali, 2014 KHC 4652 : (2014) 10 SCC 459 : 2014 (4) KLJ 322 : 2014 (4) KLT SN 115, contended that to be a valid gift under the Mohammedan law, three essential features, namely, (i) declaration of the gift by the donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift by the donee expressly or impliedly and (iii) delivery of possession either actually or constructively to the donee, are to be satisfied. According to the learned counsel, it was found in OS No. 124 of 2007 that the first defendant is in possession of the suit property and as such, the plaintiff cannot be heard to contend that he has obtained possession of the suit property as per the terms of the gift relied on by him. The learned counsel also contended, relying on the admission made by the plaintiff while giving evidence as PW 1, that the plaintiff did not get possession of the suit property at the time of execution of Ext. A6 gift deed. According to the learned counsel, insofar as the plaintiff has not obtained possession of the suit property, the gift in his favour is invalid and therefore, the suit filed on the strength of the said gift is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellants also pleaded that if the contention raised by them as aforesaid is not found acceptable, the defendants may be given a reasonable time to vacate the suit property.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent did not seriously dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that