JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff in suit O.S No.157 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam against the defendants/respondents herein for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession with other consequential relief in respect of suit properties as listed in the plaint schedule. Before the Trial Court both the parties adduced their evidence and on considering the documents and oral evidence the Trial Court framed issues held that the father of the plaintiff has no right to sell the property to the defendants 1 to 4 nor empower to execute mortgage in favour of the sixth defendant for the reason that already he executed gift settlement deed in favour of his minor son/plaintiff in the year 1986 by appointing his wife as guardian thereby declared suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit as prayed for.

2. Challenging the said findings the defendant 1 to 4 preferred an appeal in A.S No. 132 of 2014, on the file of the Sub Court, Arrakonam , which framed issues separately and analysed the facts held that the plaintiff failed to prove that said gift deed was acted upon nor his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Besides plaintiff was not filed suit within three years after attaining his majority. Thereby the suit was dismissed by allowing appeal.

3. Chellanging the reversal findings the plaintiff preferred this second appeal by contending that on the date of gift itself possession has been delivered but the lower appellate Court erred in holding that he has not proved the possession of the property by misconstruing Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act. Further it also erred in holding that as per article

58 of Limitation Act, suit as such was bared by limitation.

4. This Court admitted the second appeal with the following substantial questions of law:

ì.Whether lower appellate Court has committed an error in law in holding that the gift settlement under the original of Ex.A1 was not acted upon by acceptance of the gift, ignoring the decision of th Supreme Court reported in 2013 (13) SCC 210?

ii. Whether the Judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be construed to be a judgment as it is not in accordance with Order XLI Rule

31 CPC?

Iii. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an erron in holding that the suit is barred by limitation?

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

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property as described in the plaint schedule is belongs to his father Mani Reddiar and he executed Registered settlement deed dated 26.05.1976 in favour of the plaintiff by appointing Pachiammal/plaintiff's mother as guardian since the plaintiff was minor. Therefore after examination of the gift deed he has no right to deal with suit property, but in the year of 2006 the first defendant filed suit for redemption against sixth defendant in O.S No. 154 of 2000 then on verification of records plaintiff came to know that his father executed Usufructuary mortgage in favour of the sixth defendant in respect of A schedule property and delivered the possession when the plaintiff was minor. Further he came to know that his father sold A schedule property in favour of the one Subramaani father of defendants 1 to 3. As his father has no right to convey the property thereby said sale deed in favour of the the defendants 1 to 4 would not bind him. So also, the fifth defendant is the plaintiff's father’s brother enjoyed the B schedule property as it was already coveyed by way of settlement deed in which the fifth defendant has no right. Hence, he filed suit for declaration of title over the suit property as well as recovery of possession.

6. The contention of the first defendant is that the plaintiff’s father Mani Reddiar sold item 1 and 2 of A schedule property and item 1 and 3 of B schedule property to sixth defendant’s father Subramani for valid consideration under registered sale deed dated 10.10.1988 the said deed was executed by plaintiff’s fath