The burden of proof for an oral gift, the requirement of registration for a valid gift, and the concept of adverse possession were central to the court's decision.

The judgment and decree, dated 29.11.2005 and made in A.S.No.53 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2005 and made in O.S.No.104 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, are under challenge in this memorandum of second appeal.

2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.104 of 1997, whereas the respondent is the defendant.

3. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the appellants may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent be referred to as the defendant wherever the context so require.

4. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are as under:-

a. One Ayyamperumal, who was the father of the plaintiff, had died intestate, even prior to 1956, leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir.

b. The said Ayyamperumal had purchased the suit property and some other properties from one Abdul Mazid on 4.9.1943 for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same.

c. After the death of the said Ayyamperumal, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any disturbance for more than 50 years. Since the sale deed purchasing the suit property had been lost, a copy of the same has been filed. Patta also stands in the name of the plaintiff.

d. Except the plaintiff, one Ettyammal and Govindammal, who are the sisters of the plaintiff, had no manner of right or claim in the suit property. In respect of other properties, the plaintiff had executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant in the year 1980 and it was cancelled subsequently on 19.5.1997. Since the settlement deed was cancelled, the defendant has been threatening from 19.8.1997 and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of declaration and interim injunction.

5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement saying that the defendant is the son of the plaintiff's sister. The said Ayyamperumal had purchased the suit property and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While he was alive, he gifted the suit property orally to his daughter and son-in-law, viz., Ettyammal and Periyasamy. Thereafter, he stayed along with her daughter.

6. The plaintiff had left the Nesal Village before 30 years and has been permanently residing in Vemboondi Village. At any point of time, the plaintiff had not objected to the possession and enjoyment of the defendant's parents.

7. The father of the defendant Periyasamy had dug a well in the suit property and obtained electricity connection in his name in the year 1974 and the plaintiff had not raised any objection for that, but he had given consent letter for obtaining the electricity connection in the name of Periyasamy.

8. On 30.8.1995, the suit property was settled in favour of the defendant by his mother Ettyammal under a registered settlement deed. The plaintiff had not paid any kist in respect of the suit property, whereas the parents of the defendant had paid kist.

9. The change of patta behind the back of the defendant does not affect the right and title over the property to the defendant. Since the defendant and his parents were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 50 years they are entitled for possessory right.

10. Based on the material proposition of facts arising from the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the trial Court has formulated as nearly as four issues for the better adjudication of the suit.

11. In order to substantiate their respective cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant were directed to face the trial. Accordingly, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined on his part. During the course of their examination Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the other hand, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and five other witness