Delivery of possession is necessary for the gift of immovable property.

One Manickathammal was the original owner of the property involved in both the appeals. Manickathammal has a son by name Thirunavukkarasu and a daughter by name Sankari Ammal. Sankari Ammal has two children, by name Valamburinadhan and minor Rathinamala. Sankari Ammal had a daughter by name Thamaraiselvi who died leaving behind her son minor Anbazhagan. Manickathammal and Thirunavukkarasu instituted the suit in O.S.No.390 of 1983 against Sankari Ammal seeking declaration and injunction. According to them, the suit property was the absolute property of Manickathammal and that the defendant Sankari Ammal surreptitiously obtained a gift deed from Manickathammal on 2.2.1982. Later, Manickathammal cancelled the gift deed by way of a registered document dated 10.2.1983 and on the same day, she had executed a gift deed in favour of her son Thirunavukkarasu. Manickathammal and Thirunavukkarasu sought for declaration of title to the property and also for an injunction restraining Sankari Ammal from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property.

2. Sankari Ammal in turn, instituted a suit in O.S.No.246 of 1985. According to her, on 2.2.1982, Manickathammal had executed Ex.B-1 registered gift deed with her full willingness and volition where under she had given life estate to Sankari Ammal and after her life, the property was to vest in the heirs of Sankari Ammal, namely plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the fourth plaintiff, who happens to be the son of the predeceased daughter of Sankari Ammal. According to Sankari Ammal, at the time of execution of the gift deed, her brother Thirunavukkarasu was in possession of the property. On the date of gift, he had grown sugarcane corps in the property. Later, when Sankari Ammal demanded possession of the property, a panchayat was held on 11.4.1982 wherein, Thirunavukkarasu agreed to vacate the lands and deliver vacant possession to Sankari Ammal after harvesting the standing sugarcane crops. She had instituted the suit stating that her brother Thirunavukkarasu had not delivered possession of the property, but questions her title to the suit property. Therefore, she filed the suit in O.S.No.246 of 1985 seeking declaration of her possessory and absolute title to the suit property and also for possession from Thirunavukkarasu.

3. The respective plaintiffs had filed written statements raising the same contentions raised by them in their respective plaints mutatis mutandis in each suit.

4. Thelearned Trial Judge framed five issues in O.S.No.390 of 1983 to the effect whether the gift deed was executed against the will of the donor, whether the gift deed was revoked and whether the gift deed was not a genuine document. Similar issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.246 of 1985 also. The learned Trial Judge admitted the gift deed as Ex.B-1, revocation deed as Ex.A-21 and the gift deed in favour of Thirunavukkarasu as Ex.A-25 along with other documents and after trial, came to the conclusion that Manickathammal had executed Ex.B-1 gift deed out of her free will and volition and that having executed a gift deed wherein she had stated that she is not reserving the right to revoke the deed, Manickathammal had not right to execute Ex.A-21, cancellation deed and also Ex.A-25, another gift deed in favour of her son. Holding so, the learned Trial Judge dismissed O.S.No.390 of 1983 and decreed the suit in O.S. No.246 of 1985 granting the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs therein.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of C.S.No.390 of 1983, the plaintiffs therein preferred A.S.No.193 of 1988 and aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.246 of 1985, the defendant namely Thirunavukkarasu preferred A.S.No.149 of 1987. The learned Sub-Judge, Ariyalur who heard both the appeals disposed them of by a common judgment. The learned Sub-Judge confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by both decrees and judgments delivered by both the courts, Thirunavukkarasu