The court ruled that a gift under Mohammedan Law requires declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, which the plaintiff established despite initial claims of non-compliance.

JUDGMENT :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2024, passed in A.S.No.221 of 2023 by the learned III Additional Judge (FAC), II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2023 in O.S.No.8904 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Heard Mr. N. Jothi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. G.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. E. Prabu, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the material available on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

4. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit to declare the revocation deed, as well as the settlement deed executed by his father in favor of the defendant, as null and void, along with other consequential reliefs. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. The suit was dismissed, prompting the plaintiff to file an appeal in A.S.No.221 of 2023, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Judge. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff, the eldest son of Mr. S.M.M. Mohideen, claims ownership of a portion of the property located at Corporation Door No. 112, Soorappa Madali Street, Triplicane, Chennai, originally owned by his father. The plaintiff asserts that he acquired 847 sq. ft. of the property through a registered settlement deed dated 03.05.1952 and has since been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. Mr. Mohideen, who had five sons and six daughters, executed four settlement deeds during his lifetime, dividing the property equally among his four surviving sons, including the plaintiff. Thesettlement deed in favor of the plaintiff, dated 11.08.2004, granted him absolute ownership of the house and the ground floor, with no conditions except for his father’s lifetime residence. The original property documents were handed over to the plaintiff's brother, S.M. Abdul Jalal.

6. In 2011, the plaintiff attempted to renovate the dilapidated tiled roof of his portion of the property, but the defendant resisted, claiming that the plaintiff’s settlement deed had been revoked. The plaintiff discovered that his father had unilaterally executed a deed of revocation on 18.07.2011 and subsequently settled the property in favor of the defendant through a new settlement deed dated 22.07.2011. Disputing the legality of these actions, the plaintiff approached the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 18051/2011, seeking a declaration that the revocation and subsequent settlement were void. This petition was dismissed on 09.12.2011, and his subsequent writ appeal (W.A. No. 1283/2012) was also dismissed on 28.06.2018. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the plaintiff’s father passed away intestate on 01.08.2014. The plaintiff later filed a review application (Rev. Application No. 195/2018) before the Madras High Courtbut withdrew it on 18.11.2019. Contending that the revocation and subsequent settlement deed were invalid, the plaintiff has now filed the current suit, seeking relief from the court. The suit emphasizes his original ownership through the settlement deed of 2004 and challenges the defendant's claims based on the 2011 revocation and settlement deeds. 7. On receipt of notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement asserting that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for its dismissal on the following grounds:

The suit is barred by limitation, as the plaintiff failed to approach the court within three years from the date of cancellation of the settlement deed in 2011.

The plaintiff filed a suit for bare cancellation of the instrumentwithout seeking relief o