JUDGMENT : This regular second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri in R.A.No.40/1997. 2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. 4. The facts as stated in O.S.No.201/1993 are that the suit property was earlier owned and possessed by one Mehaboobkhan and during his life time, he had executed a gift deed dated 04.09.1992 in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and sale deeds dated 04.09.1992 in favour of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. 5. It is also alleged that Mehaboobkhan handed over possession of the property to the plaintiffs on 07.09.1992 and from then, they are in possession. It is stated that defendant who has no right, title or interest in the suit property colluded with the Mandal Panchayath and got his name entered in the revenue documents relating to the suit property. It is also stated that defendant taking advantage of the fact that plaintiffs are family members attempted to evict them from the suit property. Hence, filed the present suit for perpetual injunction. 6. Defendant filed his written statement denying execution of gift deed and the sale deed and he contended that he is the only son of Mehaboobkhan and during his life time he had submitted a varadi to the panchayath, accordingly to which mutation entry were made out in the name of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 claimed that he was not in possession of the suit property as an absolute owner. He contended that he allowed plaintiff No.1 to reside in a portion of the suit property since she was a spinster. He claimed that he was in possession of the suit property 7. Based on all these averment, the trial Court framed following issues: 1) Whether plaintiffs proves that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property ? 2) Whether plaintiffs proves that the defendant caused alleged interference ? 3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed for ? 4) What order or decree? 8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and witness was examined as PW.2 and EXs.P.1 to 7 were marked. For the defendant, defendant was examined as PW.1 and witness was examined as DW.2 and EXs.D1 to 3 were marked. 3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed for ? 4) What order or decree? 8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and witness was examined as PW.2 and EXs.P.1 to 7 were marked. For the defendant, defendant was examined as PW.1 and witness was examined as DW.2 and EXs.D1 to 3 were marked. 9. The trial Court after considering the facts, evidence on record, passed a judgment and decree dated 26.08.1997 and dismissed the suit. 10. The plaintiffs in the suit challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in R.A.No.40/1997 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri. 11. The lower appellate Court perused the material on record and in terms of its judgment and decree dated 19.04.2006, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and consequently, decreed the suit. 12. The defendant died during the proceedings before the lower appellate Court and his legal representatives were brought on record. 13. The legal representatives of the defendant (henceforth wherever applicable referred to as defendants) have filed this regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. This appeal was admitted on 31.08.2006 and the following substantial questions of law were framed. 1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is vitiated on the ground that a finding having been recorded that the appellant is in possession of the suit property, still decreed the suit for injunction? 14. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 15. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and the deceased defendant were children of Mehaboobkhan. It is also not in dispute that the suit property was originally owned and possessed by Mehaboobkhan. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Mehaboobkhan gifted half portion of the property to the plaintiff No.1 and sold the other half portion to the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. 16. It is also claimed that Mehaboobkhan handed over physical possession of the suit property, which is a residential house. 17. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Mehaboobkhan gifted half portion of the property to the plaintiff No.1 and sold the other half portion to the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. 16. It is also claimed that Mehaboobkhan handed over physical possession of the suit property, which is a residential house. 17. Per Contra, deceased defendant claimed that his father had given a varadi to the Panchayath Authority to transfer the suit property to the name of the deceased defendant and that consequent the deceased defendant to pay the property tax and his name was extracted in the revenue records, in the office of the Panchayath. 18. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1 does not disclose anything amiss about the case of plaintiff and PW.1 is consistent in contending that she was placed in possession of the suit property and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were placed in possession of their respective share in the suit property. A stray admission has been extracted in the cross examination of the PW.2, wherein she admitted a suggestion that deceased defendant was in possession. 19. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the sole ground that the plaintiffs had failed to examine the other witness to prove the document that were executed by the Mehaboobkhan in favour of the plaintiffs and also that possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs. 20. The trial Court heavily relied upon the documents Ex.D.1-resolution and Ex.D.2-assessment extract which stood in the name of the deceased defendant. The trial Court relied upon the stray admission of a suggestion put to her in her cross examination that the deceased defendant was residing in the suit property. 21. It is now settled possession of law that once a document is registered in accordance with law, production of such document during the course of trial would substantially establish a fact that plaintiffs were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the title of Mehaboobkhan to the suit property is not in dispute, under Mohamedan Law a person is entitled to gift his whole property to any person including his heir. There was no impediment for Mehaboobkhan to gift half of the suit property to the plaintiff No.1 and to sell remaining half to the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. Since the title of Mehaboobkhan to the suit property is not in dispute, under Mohamedan Law a person is entitled to gift his whole property to any person including his heir. There was no impediment for Mehaboobkhan to gift half of the suit property to the plaintiff No.1 and to sell remaining half to the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. In respect of immovable property where there is a structure, possession it is to be construed that person who sells or transfer the property also transfers the physical possession and enjoyment of the property gifted or sold. 22. In the case on hand there a specific recital in the gift deed as well as in the sale deed that the possession of the property gifted/sold were delivered to the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. In the face of such finding, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is rendered after full and fair consideration of the evidence and admission on record. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate Court. 23. The substantial question of law framed by this Court as to whether lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of trial Court is therefore answered in the affirmative. In so far as second question of law framed by this Court, though the suggestion put to PW-2 in the course of cross examination is admitted. This stray admission would not take away evidentiary value of the gift deed and sale deeds whereby possession is shown to have been delivered by the deceased Mehaboobkhan in favour of the plaintiffs. 24. Further, there is no documentary evidence to establish that the defendant was in possession of the suit property, notwithstanding the gift and sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. A stray admission in the evidence of PW-2 cannot be pressed into service to contend that the defendant was in possession of the suit property. In view of the above, I pass the following: