Suit to be filed for setting aside the transaction.

Ratnam, J.

1. These second appeals have been preferred by Periyanayagam, who figured as second defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 97 of 1977 before the same Court. S.A. No. 1668 of 1980 arises out of O.S. No. 290 of 1978 wherein the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession with reference to two items of properties had been prayed for by respondents 1 and 2 therein. S.A. No. 1669 of 1980 arises out of O.S. No. 97 of 1977 instituted by the second defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1978 with reference to one out of two items forming the subject matter of O.S. No. 290 of 1978, praying for the relief of permanent injunction. The two items of properties forming the subject-matter of these second appeals are of an extent of 1.06 acres in survey No. 1087/1 and western 85 cents out of a total extent of 2.85 acres in survey No. 1082/6 in the hamlet of Vekakollai. The third respondent in S.A. No. 1668 of 1980, namely, Pachamuthu is the father of respondents 1 and 2 therein and first respondent in S.A. No. 1669 of 1980. Under Ex. A-1 dated 27.7.1966, Pachamuthu, acting as the guardian of this minor sons Rajendran and Rajagopal, purchased item 1 of the suit properties from one Narayanaswami for a consideration of Rs. 500. This sale deed, it is not in dispute, had been attested by the appellant in these second appeals. Likewise, under Ex. A-2 dated 6.4.1967, item 2 of the suit properties was purchased by Pachamuthu acting as the guardian of his minor sons Rajendran and Rajagopal for a consideration of Rs. 150. On 10.2.1969, under Ex. B-1, Pachamuthu purported to sell both the items of properties purchased under Ex. A-1 and A-2 in favour of the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 500. The sale deed recited purchase of other properties as the reason for the sale. On 11.2.1977, first respondent in these second appeals, under Ex. A-3, purported to lease out item 1 in favour of Murugavel, who figures as fourth respondent in S.A. No. 1668 of 1980 and as second respondent in S.A. No. 1669 of 1980. Immediately thereafter, the appellant instituted on 19.2.1977 O.S. No. 97 of 1977 praying for a decree for permanent injunction against respondents 1 and 4 in S.A. No. 1668 of 1980 and the respondents in S.A. No. 1669 of 1980 on the ground that he had purchased that item under Ex. B-1 dated 10.2.1969 and his possession and enjoyment thereof was attempted to be interfered with unlawfully by the lessee under Ex. A-3. On 1.7.1978, respondents 1 and 2 in S.A. No. 1668 of 1980 instituted O.S. No. 290 of 1978 praying for a declaration of their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession. According to them, they were the owners of the properties, but that their father had sold the suit properties on 10.2.1969 while they were minors without the prior permission of the Court and by reason of the execution of the lease deed on 11.2.1977, they had asserted their title to the suit properties and since they were not bound by the sale deed executed by their father Pachamuthu and that had also been avoided rendering it a void transaction, they continued to retain title over the properties and on that footing prayed for the reliefs of declaration and injunction. In the suit O.S. No. 97 of 1977, the defence was that the sale deed executed by Pachamuthu was voidable and had also been avoided thereby rendering it void since its inception and, therefore, the appellant did not have title by reason of the purchase under Ex. B-1. The defence of the appellant in O.S. No. 290 of 1978 was that he had acquired title to the suit properties by purchase from Pachamuthu under Ex. B-1 dated 10.2.1969 and was also in possession as a lawful owner thereof. Since common questions arose for decision in O.S. Nos. 97 of 1977 and 290 of 1978, they were tried together and the evidence recorded in O.S. No. 290 of 1978 was treated as the evidence in O.S. No. 97 of 1977.

2. On a consideration of th