( 1. ) THESE Second Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 28.11.2006 passed in AS.Nos.6 and 7/2006 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 10.08.2005 passed in OS.Nos.46/1997 and 308/1999 by the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.

( 2. ) THE Appellant herein filed the above said suit in OS.No.46/1997 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli against the Respondent herein for declaration and recovery of possession of the house bearing Door No.155, Pulianjuvanam, 7th Street, Thiruvaranganeri, Eruvadi. He claims title of the above said property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 18.04.1994 executed by his mother Asan Pathumal, who in turn got the property by way of a registered gift deed dated 29.04.1993 from her husband. THE brother of the Appellant had filed a suit for partition of his share in the suit property and one another property against his mother and the Appellant herein before the District Munsif Court, Valliyoor in OS.NO.308/1999. THE said suits in OS.NO.46/1997 and OS.No.308/1999 were tried jointly. THE suit in OS.No.46/1997 was dismissed and the suit in OS.No.308/1999 was decreed by the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli by common judgement dated 10.08.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred appeals in AS.Nos.6 and 7/2006 and the same were dismissed by the I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli by common judgement dated 28.11.2006. As against the same, the present second appeals are filed by the Appellant.

In so far as the 2nd item of the suit property in OS.No.308/1999 is concerned, the Appellant has no objection for decreeing the suit. The dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent is only in respect of the suit property in OS.No.46/1997, which is the 1st item in OS.No.308/1999 filed for partition.

( 3. ) ACCORDING to the Appellant, the property in dispute originally belonged to the father of the Appellant and the Respondent, by name, Nagoor Meera Sahib. He executed a deed of Hiba Ex.A5 in favour of his wife, namely, Asan Pathumal, under a registered deed dated 29.04.1993 and delivered possession of the house to her. She accepted the gift and took possession of the property and was living thereon. The Respondent, who is the brother of the Appellant, was permitted to reside with her. She sold the property to the Appellant by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.04.1994 under Ex.A13. Since the Respondent/Defendant refused to surrender possession to the Appellant, the suit in OS.No.46/1997 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

( 4. ) THE suit in OS.No.46/1997 was resisted by the Defendant/Respondent on various grounds. THE defence of the Respondent/ Defendant was that the suit property did not belong to their father exclusively, but, the same was purchased from and out of the income of the joint business carried on by Nagoor Meera Sahib and his sons, including the Defendant. As such, Nagoor Meera Sahib had no right to give the property under a deed of Hiba in favour of his wife Asan Pathumal. THE gift deed in favour Asan Pathumal is invalid, because there was no delivery of possession and acceptance of gift. Further, the deed of Hiba is a sham and nominal transaction of Nagoor Meera Sahib and consequently, the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff is not true and valid and not binding on the Respondent/ Defendant.

Before the Trial Court, the Appellant/ plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and examined PW.2 and PW.3 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 on his side. The Respondent/Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B16.

( 5. ) ON analysing the evidence, the Trial Court held that Ex.A5 deed of Hiba is not valid, because there was no delivery of possession and there was also no valid acceptance on the part of the donee Asan Pathumal and accordingly dismissed the suit in OS.N.46/1997 and decreed the suit in OS.No.308/1999 for partition.

( 6. ) THE first ap