The plaintiff, as appellant has come forward with the Second Appeal, challenging Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in A.S. No. 91 of 1988, dated 21.07.1989 by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, in O.S. No. 753 of 1983, dated 24th August 1987.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 753 of 1983 for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the suit property - house by stating that the property was originally owned by one Syed Abubucker, from whom he purchased the same under a sale deed document No. 698/1978 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 25.10.1983, the defendants attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and began to dug and attempted to remove the soil to put the building and denying the title, hence, he is constrained to file the suit for the above stated relief.

4. Resisting the same, the second defendant filed a written statement by stating that the property is owned by Syed Abubucker, who is none other than the husband of the second defendant and he gifted the same and other properties to the defendants 1 to 7 on 01.02.1967 and the gift was valid and effective and followed by possession of the plaint property which is item No. 4 in the settlement deed. So, on the date of sale deed of the year 1978, Syed Abubucker is not the owner. So, he has not conveyed any right under the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants put up a building by spending more than Rs. 15,000/- and the plaintiff has not questioned the same. So, he is estopped from questioning the same now. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Subsequently, the plaintiff has filed an amendment petition to recover the possession by stating that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants encroached upon the property.

6. The second defendant filed additional written statement in which she has stated that they are in possession of the property from 1967 onwards.

7. The gist and essence of the reply statement filed by the plaintiff:-

The gift deed is sham and nominal document and it was not given effective. So, the defendants are not the owners of the property and that has been came into existence clandestinely by the device of Mohamed Abul Khader. The sale deed alone is valid document. Even though, the plaintiff prevented the defendants from putting up the construction and filed a suit, they made a construction and hence he filed a contempt application. He took possession from his vendor Syed Abubucker. In pursuance of sale deed, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying kists. Hence, he denied the averments made in the written statement and prayed for a decree.

8. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and the arguments of both sides, has framed the necessary issues and decreed the suit as prayed for in the plaint. Against which, the defendants preferred an appeal and the appeal has been allowed. Against which, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal which was dismissed. Against which, he preferred Special Leave Petition wherein the Honourable Supreme Court remitted back the matter to this Court to decide the matter on merits.

9. Since the appeal is of the year 1990, the documents have been destroyed and hence, they were reconstructed.

10. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law have been framed:

(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in upholding Exhibit B.1 Settlement Deed without giving a finding that it was duly executed and attested?

(2) Whether the Power Exhibit B.4 is valid and if not Exhibit B.1 was not validly registered?

(3) Whether recital in Exhibit B.1 alone is suffice to prove delivery of possession when the Settlor retained origi