The possession of the tenant is in law the possession of the landlord or superior proprietor.

SADASIVAM, J. :- Appellants are the brother's sons and heirs of one Kadir Mohideen, who died on 16-6-1948. They filed the suit to recover possession of two shops, bearing door Nos. 33 and 34, Main Road in Shalavalli village, as belonging to the estate of Kadir Mohideen. The first defendant Zuleika Bi is the daughter's daughter of Kadir Mohideen's sister-in-law and she claimed title to the suit shops under a gift deed, Ex. A-14, dated 27-5-1945 executed by Kadir Mohideen, and also on the basis of adverse possession. There can be no doubt in this case that Kadir Mohideen executed the gift deed and intended to give the shops to the first defendant, Zulaika Bi. But the trial Court found that the gift was invalid, as it was not accepted by or on behalf of the donee Zulaika Bi, and the donor Kadir Mohideen did not deliver possession of the suit shops and the lower appellate court concurred with this finding. The trial court also negatived the plea of adverse possession put forward by the first defendant Zulaika Bi, but the lower appellate court differed from that finding and dismissed the suit Ramakrishnan, J., who heard the second appeal, has stated that one of the crucial questions for consideration in this case is whether Hidayatullah, the father of the first defendant, Zulaika Bi, had given his consent to the terms of the gift deed. He has observed that "neither of the lower courts has approached the case from this point of view to find out whether the circumstances relating to the participation of Hidayathullah in the execution of the gift deed would amount to an implied acceptance of the gift on the part of Hidayathullah. "Relying on the powers conferred under Section 103, Civil Procedure Code, the learned Judge considered the evidence in this case and found that in the arrangement made in the gift deed by Kadir Mohideen, he had the full concurrence of Hidayathullah, the natural guardian of the then minor Zulaika Bi, and that this was sufficient to support a finding that there was implied acceptance of the gift by the natural guardian of the minor on her behalf. He found that there were sufficient circumstances to constitute a valid delivery of possession of the suit shops in pursuance of the gift deed and upheld the gift. He also accepted the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. Ex. A-14 is the gift deed executed by Kadir Mohideen in favour of the first defendant, Zuleika Bi, who was then 9 years old. It is clear from the recitals in the document that Kadir Mohideen brought up his wife's sister's daughter Fathima Bi, the mother of the first defendant Even at the time of the marriage of Fathima Bi, to Hidayathullah, Kadir Mohideen had promised to help her to the extent of his means and it was in pursuance of the same, he has purported to execute the gift deed, Ex. A-14. Both the trial court and the appellate court have found the gift to be true and that Kadir Mohideen intended to give the suit shops to the first defendant. Kadir Mohideen was divided from his only brother Abdul Kadir Rowther, the father of the plaintiff-appellants, and there is no dispute that he is the owner of the properties covered by the gift deed. Ramakrishnan, J., has rightly pointed out that there was a certain amount of hard swearing by witnesses on both sides and that a part of their

evidence suffered from inconsistencies. Thus the second plaintiff Mohamed Ali (P W. 1) went to the extent of stating in his chief examination that his father was not divided from the deceased Kadir Mohideen. But he had to admit the fact when he was confronted in cross-examination with the partition deed Ex. A-2 dated 21-10-1927.

3. The appellants put forward a fantastic and unacceptable case that after registering the gift deed, Kadir Mohideen gave it to his sister. The contrary version of the first defendant that the gift deed was handed over to her father Hidayathullah (D. W. 2) and that he kept it in the box of

Kadir Mohide