R. THARANI, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned senior counsel for Mr. D. Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No. 38 of 2003 dated 19.07.2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 544 of 1996 dated 30.12.2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The appellant herein has filed a suit in O.S. No. 544 of 1996 before the learned II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai seeking for a prayer of partition and for separate possession of half share in the suit property and that the share of the plaintiff to be alloted on the western side in North South direction. The suit was decreed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. Against the Judgment and decree, the respondent herein has filed an appeal in A.S. No. 38 of 2003 before the learned Sub Judge, Kuzhithurai and the appeal was allowed by reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in the trial Court. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the appellant herein has filed this second appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is a specific plot having an extent of 8 cents comprised in old Survey No. 3753 of Kulappuram village and in resurvey number is R.S. No. 454/22A. This property originally belonged to one Sukumaran and his wife Bibi. The plaintiff has purchased the property from Sukumaran on 26.12.1994. Though entire 8 cents was mentioned as the sale property, the vendor is entitled only to ½ of the 8 cents of land. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the western half of the property. The defendant has purchased the other half of the property from Bibi and the remaining half property belonged to the defendant. The defendant is trying to remove sand from the suit property for manufacturing bricks whereas the property is not yet partitioned and that there will be inconvenience for the plaintiff and there was an attempt to remove sand on 13.08.1996 and 25.08.1996 and it is prayed that the suit property to be partitioned.

5. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is not having any right or joint right over the property. The suit property and another 8 cents of land was purchased by the parents of Bibi on 02.11.1988 as sridhana property. The name of Sukumaran was included in the sale deed just because he was the husband of Bibi. Sukumaran was not having any right over the property and Sukumaran will only be a Trustee. The property is the sridhana property of Bibi and the absolute owner is only Bibi. Sukumaran and Bibi got divorced. Sukumaran re-married someone else and the sale deed is not valid. The sale deed was registered at Kerala in Parasalai whereas the property is within the jurisdiction of Kollamkodu Sub Registrar office. The suit property was purchased by the defendant from Bibi and the plaintiff is not entitled to get half share in the property.

6. This Court by an order dated 28.11.2018, has admitted the second appeal and has framed the following substantial questions of law, which are as follows:

“(1) Whether the pleading of the defendant that the suit property was purchased by the parents of Bivi (PW-3) in the name of the said Bivi and her husband Sugumaran is not hit by the provisions of Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benomi Property Transaction Act, 1988?

(2) Whether the said purchase of the property could be considered as dowry within the meaning of Sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?

(3) Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the sale deed dated 26.12.1994 is valid, in view of its registration at Parasala in Kerala?”

Issue No. 1:

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the pleadings of the defendant is hi