The above three Second Appeals arise out of two suits, viz. O.S.No.286 of 2008 and O.S.No.291 of 2008. Since the issue involved in all the three Appeals is one and the same, the Appeals are taken up for disposal by a common judgment.

2. O.S.No.286 of 2008 was filed by the appellant, viz. Sirajuddin seeking permanent injunction and O.S.No.291 of 2008 was filed by the deceased respondent, viz. Sadurudeen for recovery of possession. Both the suits were dismissed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, by a common judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the deceased respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.87 of 2010 as against O.S.No.286 of 2008 and also filed A.S.No.8 of 2011 as against O.S.No.291 of 2008. Aggrieved by the finding in O.S.No.286 of 2008, the appellant herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2010. All the three appeals were taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 22.09.2011, whereby, the First Appellate Court negatived all the contentions of the appellant herein and held in favour of the deceased respondent/Sadurudeen. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come up with the present Second Appeals.

3. Initially, O.S.No.291 of 2008 was filed by the deceased respondent, viz. Sadurudeen for recovery of possession and for damages with respect to a room in the first floor of the building at Door No.23 in Rasthamanavalli Street, Mayiladuthurai Town. According to Sadurudeen, the suit property originally belonged to his father Sahib Khan Sahib, his brother Moinudeen Khan and himself under Ex.A1, Partition Deed dated 06.05.1954 and after the death of Sahib Khan Sahib, his property devolved upon Moinudeen Khan and himself equally and after the death of Moinudeen Khan, he succeeds to the suit property by interstate succession. According to the deceased Sadurudeen, after the death of Moinudeen Khan and his wife Habija Beevi, who have no issues, he alone is entitled to the entire suit property as the sole legal heir. Since he permitted the appellant/Sirajudeen to occupy the suit property as a permissive occupant and subsequently cancelled the permission given to the appellant, he filed the suit in O.S.No.291 of 2008 for recovery of possession and for damages.

4. While so, it is the case of the appellant/Sirajudeen before the Trial Court that during the lifetime of Moinudeen Khan, he orally gifted the suit property in favour of his wife, Habija Beevi and after his death, Habija Beevi enjoyed the same by collecting rent from the tenant, one Kumar, arrayed as one of the respondents in the present appeals. According to the appellant, Habija Beevi, during her life time, orally gifted the suit property to him and hence, he is entitled to Moinudeen's half-a-share in the suit property and that Moinudeen Khan and Habija Beevi, treated him as an adopted son and he lived along with them. It is his contention that he is not a permissive occupant as claimed by the deceased respondent, Sadurudeen. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.286 of 2008 seeking permanent injunction restraining the deceased respondent/Sadurudeen from alienating the suit property.

5. The Trial Court, on examination of the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant/Sirajudeen is entitled to half-a-share in the suit property in O.S.No.286 of 2008 with absolute right over the superstructure in Item I of the suit property at Door No.23, Rasthamanavalli Street, Mayiladuthurai Town and dismissed the relief of permanent injunction, as the respondent/Sadurudeen's rights as a co-owner would be affected. Insofar as the suit in O.S.No.291 of 2008 filed by the respondent/Sadurudeen is concerned, the Trial Court dismissed the same. Challenging the dismissal of the relief of permanent injunction sought by him, the appellant/Sirajudeen preferred an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2010 and challenging the common judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.286 of 2008 and O.S.No.291 of 2008, respectively, the decea