The defendant, who suffered double defeat before the Courts below, has filed this second appeal. The respondent herein, the brother's son of the defendant, as plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed. The defendant filed the first appeal in A.S.No.90 of 2001. The first appeal was dismissed, thereby the judgment and decree of the trial court got confirmed. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Without proving the alleged oral gift, whether the unregistered declaration deed will confer any title upon the plaintiff through Ex.A-1?

2. Whether the oral gift can be relied upon in pursuance of the Declaration Deed, dated 03.03.1994, when the witnesses of the alleged oral gift was not examined?

3. When late Kider Fathim a Thayar, the vendor of the plaintiff deposed in the previous suit that possession was not given in pursuance of the alleged oral gift, whether the plaintiff can claim title in pursuance of the same?"

2. The brief facts :-

The suit property is a house bearing Door No.29, Yahussain Thaikkal Street, Nagore Town, in Town Survey No. 1967 to an extent of northern 2000-1/2 sq.ft., The plaintiff is the owner of this property. Smt. Kider Fathima Thayar sold the property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 08.11.1996. Originally, the very same property was settled by Smt.Kider Fathima Thayar in favour of the defendant on 28.08.1986. The defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.29 of 1997 before District Munsif Court, Nagapttinam, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was filed against plaintiff's guardian and three others. The said suit was dismissed and as against the same, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.298 of 1997. Plaintiff issued a notice dated 26.10.1997, asking the defendant to vacate the property. In the reply notice, the defendant raised a dispute regarding title to the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for declaration of title.

3. The case of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant on the following contentions:-

(i) Neither the plaintiff's vendor, consequently nor the plaintiff had any title to the suit property.

(ii) The sale deed is not true and valid.

(iii) In pursuance of the settlement deed, dated 28.08.1986, the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(iv) Taking advantage of the old age and the inability of the defendant's mother, the sale deed has been obtained sham and nominally.

(v) The declaration deed, dated 03.03.1994, is a fabricated document brought into existence for the purpose of the suit. In any event, this document will not prove gift of suit property by the defendant to his mother.

(vi) The evidence given by Smt.Kider Fathima Thayar in O.S.No.29 of 1997 will prove that the settlement executed by her has not been cancelled and that the declaration deed, dated 03.03.1991, was not executed by the defendant.

(vii) The settlement deed executed by the defendant's mother can be cancelled only by another registered document.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession?

(iii) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. The trial court decreed the suit on the following findings:-

(i) Even though the defendant has contended that the declaration deed is a fabricated document, there is no specific denial as to the signature under Ex.A-2-acknowledgement deed. Even though the defendant has stated in his evidence that he did not execute Ex.A-2-acknowledgement deed and that he used to put his signature only in English and more specifically that the signature as found in Ex.A-2 is not that of him, still, because of the answer given to the suggested question by the other side, the defendant is deemed to have impliedly accepted th