The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the validity of a gift under the Mohammadan Law, the necessity of attestation and execution of documents, and the role of subsequent conduct of the donor in property disputes.

(Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1991 passed in A.S. No.49 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1989 in O.S. No.985 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyur.)

The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and on appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is as under:

The defendants father by name Fakir Mohideen Rowthar executed a Settlement Deed in favour of Mohideen Beevi, his daughter, who in turn, executed a Sale Deed on 21.07.1986 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.13,000/-on account of which the appellant/plaintiff has sole ownership over the suit property. On 28.06.1986, the respondent/defendant, along with his wife, came to Erwadi and resided as licensee in the suit schedule property with due permission from his sister Mohideen Beevi. Since the respondent/defendant refused to vacate the premises even after the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, the latter sent a legal notice dated 16.08.1986 to the former and on refusal by the respondent/defendant to vacate the suit schedule property even after receipt of legal notice, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property.

3. Therespondent/defendant filed a written statement contending that :

a. a sale agreement was made between his father Fakir Mohideen Rowthar and himself on 15.08.1985 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- out of which, he had paid a sum of Rs.7,000/-and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.3,000/- within three months from the date of the sale agreement;

b. thesettlement deed was obtained by Mohideen Beevi from Fakir Mohideen Rowther by means of undue influence when he was ill and hence, it is not valid;

c. the sale agreement between Fakir Mohideen Rowther and the respondent/defendant was made prior to the Settlement Deed and the respondent/defendant has been in possession of the suit property from the date of the sale agreement; and

d. the suit has to be dismissed for non-joinder of Fakir Mohideen Rowther as a necessary party.

4. While the appellant/plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked five exhibits, the respondent/defendant too examined three witnesses and marked thirty three exhibits before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, concluding that the Settlement Deed in favour of Mohideen Beevi was obtained when Fakir Mohideen Rowther was in a conscious state of mind and was in accordance with the Mohammedan law and further holding that the sale agreement entered into between Fakir Mohideen Rowther and the respondent/defendant was created for the purpose of the case, decreed the suit.

5. In the appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant, the lower appellate court, though held that delivery of possession was handed over to Mohideen Beevi by Fakir Mohideen Rowther by way of Settlement Deed, concluded that the Settlement Deed was not valid since title was not declared in favour of Mohideen Beevi and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the gift deed has been obtained by undue influence is correct especially when it has been held that there has been a valid acceptance of it?."

7. Mr. S. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that the lower appellate court has erred in holding that the Settlement Deed was obtained by Mohideen Bee