Per G. RAJASURIA, J.

1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgment and decree 2.1.2007 passed by the Sub-Court, Vellore, in A.S. No. 53 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore, in O.S. No. 226 of 2005, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A recapitulation and ‘resume‘ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) to declare the title of the plaintiff to the suit property described in the schedule hereunder;

(b)to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff‘s possession and enjoyment of the suit property;

(c)to direct the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.” (extracted as such)

(ii) The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(iii) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. On the plaintiff‘s side, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4s and marked Exhibit A-1. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exhibits B-1 to B-28.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

“(a) Whether the plaintiff has proved the ingredients of oral gift under Muslim Personal Law;

(b)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction to protect her lawful possession.”

5. After hearing both sides, my learned predecessor framed the following substantial question of law.

“Whether the Courts below are correct, while appreciating the admitted possession of the plaintiff in the suit property had legally failed to grant permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from evicting the plaintiff except under due process of law?”

6. Heard both sides.

7. The gist and kernal of the admitted facts or at least the undeniable facts would run thus:

(i) The respondent/defendant happened to be the absolute owner of the entire property found described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff would contend that oral ‘hibba‘ was given by the defendant in her favour in respect of 1/3rd share in the said property. The plaintiff is none but the defendant‘s brother‘s daughter.

(ii) The defendant would contend that she permitted the plaintiff to occupy a portion of the said house as a permissive occupier and at no point of time such alleged ‘hibba‘ emerged, at the instance of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

(iii) The Courts below gave a concurrent finding that the plea of ‘hibba‘, as put forth by the plaintiff was untenable. Whereupon they held that since the plaintiff claimed the relief of absolute ownership based on the ‘hibba‘, which was negatived, she was not entitled to any injunction.

8. I would like to extract hereunder the relevant portions of the judgments of both the Courts below:

(a) An excerpt from the judgment of the trial Court would run thus:

“28. ..... A person in settled possession can prayed (six) for injunction against any other person other than the true owner.....”

(extracted as such)

(b) An excerpt from the judgment of the first appellate Court would run thus:

“8. ...... since the oral gift stands not proved and since her possession is only a permissive possession, her possession ends with the determination of the same by the defendant and since the plaintiff has not proved the title to the sui