JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mayiladuturai in A.S.No.10 of 2016 confirming the judgment of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuturai in O.S.No.55 of 2013.

2. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and directing the defendants to surrender possession of the suit property and for costs against the appellant and respondents Mathivanan and Muthezhilan. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to one Fathamuthu Joharan. She gave the suit property to her grandson Mohamed Sarvardeen, the first respondent by way of oral Hiba on 15.02.1997. It was followed by execution of a confirmation deed dated 27.01.1998 by Fathamuthu Joharan. The Hiba was given in the presence of Hidyathulla and Akbar Ali. Fathamuthu Joharan gave documents regarding the suit property to the first respondent at the time of giving Hiba. The first respondent accepted the Hiba, took possession of the suit property. House tax was transferred to his name and he paid the house tax. The door No.3/9 was changed as 3/11 by the local panchayath. Sabir Mohamed, father of first respondent, not satisfied with his mother Fathamuthu Joharan that she has given her property to the first respondent, attempted to interfere with the property given to the first respondent. Therefore, Fathamuthu Joharan filed a suit in O.S.No.142 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuturai. That suit was decreed as prayed for. Sabir Mohamed gave torture to first respondent and his mother. Therefore, first respondent was forced to leave the suit village. First respondent's father managed to lease the property to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The second respondent Mathivanan issued notice to the first respondent stating that he purchased the suit property from Sabir Mohamed on 27.01.2005. It is said in that notice that Sabir Mohamed was given Hiba by his mother and there was also a settlement in his favour. Since, the property was already given to the first respondent by oral Hiba, confirmed by written document dated 27.01.1998, any Hiba or settlement by Fathamuthu Joharan to Sabir Mohamed or to anybody else is invalid. A notice was given to Junior Engineer, TNEB, on 24.07.2010 followed by notice dated 22.09.2012 for vacating the suit property. Thereafter, second respondent as a power agent of the third respondent sold the suit property to the fourth respondent on 14.02.2013. In such circumstances, the suit is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The third defendant/fourth respondent filed written statement.

The case of third defendant in brief reads as follows:

Third defendant purchased the suit property through the power agent of second defendant on 14.02.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/-. Second defendant was enjoying the suit property as an owner by purchase on 13.10.2005 from first defendant. First defendant purchased the suit property from Sabir Mohamed. Sabir Mohamed's mother Fathamuthu Joharan executed a settlement deed dated 29.11.2004 to Sabir Mohamed. Subsequently, house tax receipts had been changed in the name of the third defendant and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The alleged oral Hiba dated 15.02.1997 claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff is false and not true. It was not given in accordance with muslim personal law. The deed of confirmation dated 27.01.1998 is also not true. The house tax receipts for the period of 1998 to 2003 had been created for the purpose of the suit. The decree in O.S.No.142 of 1998 is not true and it will not bind the defendant. Third defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit property as a matter of right and therefore suit has no merits.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues had been framed by the Trial Court:

i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the suit property?