Person thinking that he was executing a well signed partition deed without knowing the very fact of signing partition deed.

Defendant in O.S. No. 896 of 1994, on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant.

2. Plaintiff is the father of the appellant, and the suit filed by him is to declare that the father continues to be the absolute owner of the suit properties, and for recovery of possession of the same from the very obstruction of the defendant, and for future profits till the properties are delivered to him.

3. Material averments may be summarised as follows :-

Late Verdharaja Kounder was the father of the plaintiff, and, at the time of his death, there was only 6 cents of land (house-site) belonging to him. The same inherited by plaintiff and his two brothers. Each of them got two cents for their respective share. Except for this, plaintiff did not inherit anything from his father. Even these two cents, plaintiff has already sold. It is alleged that plaintiff's father-in-law Narayanasami had three daughters, and plaintiff's wife was the eldest. Narayanaswami was possessed of some Lands and, after his death, the daughters sold the property and all of them came to the village where plaintiff was also residing. The sale proceeds of the property were given to the plaintiff, and he used the same for purchase of properties. Apart from that, he was also cultivating properties of third parties on lease, and from the income so derived, he was able to acquire properties. It is said that the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule belong to the plaintiff absolutely, and none else has any right to the same.

4. Plaintiff is very old and is not educated. Because of his age, he thought of providing all his assets to all his children. He executed a will in respect of 2 Kaanis' of land in favour of his four daughters. The will was also duly registered. These two 'Kaanis' of land formed part of the land belonging to the plaintiff. He also wanted the defendant to be provided with some items of properties.

5. Defendant, who is the only son, did not like the entire properties to be given to the daughters, and he wanted all the remaining properties also to be given to him. He wanted his father to execute a will in respect of the remaining extent of the properties in his favour so that the daughters may not be able to claim them. It is said that on 24-10-1994, defendant came to the plaintiff and told him that he should go over to Cuddalore for executing a will in respect of the properties which he has agreed to give to the defendant. Plaintiff went to Manjakkuppam where his signature was taken in some document, which was already written. Plaintiff put his signature in the document out of absolute faith and confidence, and was under the bona fide impression that he was executing a will. He being a illiterate, he had to depend on others to know about the contents. But the document was not read over to him, and, even the Sub-Registrar did not apprise him of the nature of contents of the document.

6. After executing the document, plaintiff came to the village, and he was under the impression that he had executed a will, which would come into force after his lifetime. Two days prior to the institution of the suit, plaintiff was driven out of the house, and only at that time, defendant informed the planitff that what he executed is a partition deed, and in none of the plaint items, he has got any right. It is said that he never know that he had executed any other document. He would not have put his signature if only he knew that the document which he was executing was a partition deed. Even though the nomenclature of the document happens to be 'Partition deed', that is not going to give the defendant any right. It is said that the document is void ab initio, for, he did not have the intention to put his signature knowing the contents. Hence, so far as he is concerned, the document is non est and void. The suit was, therefore, filed for declaration and title, and for recovery of possession.

7. The appellant (defendant) in his writte