ORDER :

The defendant is before this Court challenging the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned I-Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli dismissing the petitioner's application for rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.146 of 2016.

2. The brief facts, which are essential for disposing of the above Civil Revision Petition, are as follows :-

2.1. The respondent had filed O.S.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the I-Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli for a declaration that the suit schedule property belongs to him absolutely and for a mandatory injunction against the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a stipulated time.

2.2. The respondent/plaintiff had come forward with the case that the suit schedule property and its larger extent belonged to his father. The revision petitioner/defendant is the brother of the respondent/plaintiff. The property, which is situate to the West of the plaint schedule property, is a private Thurkha, which was under maintenance of the plaintiff's father. Apart from the schedule properties, there were other properties, which his father was in possession and enjoyment. On 29.06.1992, the respondent's father had executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and on the very same day, the property was handed over to him. From the date of settlement, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He has had the revenue records mutated in his name and from 1992, property tax to the Municipal Corporation was being remitted only in his name.

2.3. The respondent would further submit that he had obtained a loan by mortgaging this property with the bank for meeting the expenses of his daughter's marriage in the year 2004 and that he had redeemed the property, thereafter and once again in the year 2011, had obtained a loan. In short, the plaintiff would submit that he had exercised all rights as a owner in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent would submit that since the defendant had no employment or sources of income, he had requested the respondent to permit him to run a petty shop in the premises for some time so as to maintain himself and his family. On a humanitarian ground, the respondent/plaintiff had permitted the same. After the respondent had retired from service, his son, who has completed his college education, had no job. The plaintiff required the premises and therefore, he had requested the revision petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the same. Though initially the revision petitioner had agreed however, after the revision petitioner's wife had got employment in one of the Arab countries as a result, the defendant's lot had improved, he was not ready to hand over possession of the property. In fact, he has been keeping the property closed. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 02.08.2013 and a reply containing false and fabricated contentions was issued on 30.08.2013 by the defendant. He took out a defence that the property in question was a Wakf property by taking advantage of the fact that there is a Thurkha situate nearby. The respondent would submit that the Thurkha is situate in a totally different survey number and door number and the same still stands in the name of his father. However, all the records in respect of the suit schedule property are in his name. The Thurkha also is a private family Thurkha and not a Wakf property. Hence, the plaintiff had come forward with the present suit for declaration.

3. The revision petitioner had filed his written statement in which, he would submit that the suit itself was a vexatious one and would contend that the gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff was null and void, since his father did not have the authority to execute the gift settlement deed in his name. He would also raise a plea that the Court did not have juris