Attestation of a gift deed by itself does not create any interest in the property or amount to estoppel. In order to establish estoppel by representation, the conditions laid down in Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 must be satisfied.

1. Defendants in O.S. No. 1276 of 1979, on the file of II Additional District Munsifs Court, Erode, are the appellants.

2. Suit filed by plaintiffs, who are father and son, was to declare their title to the suit property, and for recovery of possession from the defendants.

3. Material averments in the plaint may be stated as follows:—

The schedule property originally belonged to one H. Hajee Shaik Madhar Sahib. He executed a gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant and his brother K. Mohammed Abdul Salam on 29-10-1941 in respect of the suit properties and other properties. Ex. A-6 is the said deed. The acquirer had also executed another gift deed on 6-3-1927, evidenced by Ex. A-10 in favour of his daughter late Ayisha Bibi. Second plaintiff, first defendant and one Abdul Salam are brother and sister, and are children of the said acquirer. As between the donees, under Ex. A-6, there was a partition on 11-12-1926, and the plaint properties were allotted to the second plaintiff. 2nd plaintiffs sister, who is the first defendant in the suit, requested her mother that she may be given some properties, and to satisfy her demand, Ayisha Bibi (Ex. A-11). In that document, second plaintiff is also an attestor. In that document Ex. A-11, the property is described as though the plaint properties are also included therein. It is said that the description shown as southern boundary in the gift deed is not correct, and none had the intention to convey the plaint property also as per Ex. A-11 to the first defendant as per the settlement deed. It is said that the second plaintiff was not aware of the contents of the documents, but she attested the same at the instance of the mother Ayisha Bibi, who executed the gift deed. In spite of the recitals, second plaintiff continued to be the owner of the property and was enjoying the same as before. In or about 1969, first defendant who was residing far away, wanted to occupy the building which is the subject matter of Ex. A-11 settlement deed. In the property that was gifted by their mother, there was no bath room or lavatory, and, at the request of the first defendant, who is none other than his sister, second plaintiff allowed her also to make use of the same along with him. It is said that it is only a permission granted and the first defendant did not have any right over the property. It is seen that the first defendant executed settlement deeds in favour of defendants 2 and 3 which included the plaint schedule property, and they began to claim hostile title to the suit property. They also began to interfere with the second plaintiffs possession over the plaint item. The second plaintiff also executed settlement deed in respect of the plaint property in favour of the first plaintiff, who is none other than his son. It is averred that none of the defendants has any right over the plaint property, and the same is the subject matter of Ex. A-10 and they alone are entitled to the same. Since defendants are claiming a right over the property, the suit has been filed for the reliefs stated above.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants 1, 2 and 3, they dispute the claim of the plaintiffs over the plaint item. According to them, as per Ex. A-10, plaint schedule property was not included therein. In fact, even under Ex. A-6, the acquirer, namely, Hajee Sheik Madhar had already gifted the plaint property to their mother Ayisha Beebi, and in fact, the acquirer did not have any right to gift the plaint schedule property also to the plaintiff No. 2 and his brother under Ex. A-10. It is also said that when the settlement deed was executed as per Ex. A-11, second plaintiff was well aware of the same, and he was also a consenting party regarding the subject matter of the properties therein. The various circumstances put forward to invalidate Ex. A-11 and also the attestation, are disputed by the defendants. It is said that the attestation will estop the plaintiffs from claiming any right over the