The release deed was found to be genuine and binding on the plaintiffs. Without proper pleadings, no evidence can be considered. The plaintiffs cannot change their stand to suit their convenience. The appeal abated in respect of the deceased respondents due to the failure to bring their legal representatives on record.

1. Challenge is made in this appeal by the plaintiffs to the Judgment and Decree dated 10.05.1988 and made in O.S.No.549 of 1984, on the file of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge and Second Additional Sub-Judge (in-charge), Coimbatore.

2. The facts, which absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised briefly as under:

The original legal characters of the parties to the suit may not be changed and be it as it is in the suit.

2.1. One Sadaya Gounder alias Sadayacha Gounder, who is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs, had died on 16.10.1959. The properties described in the Schedule A to D were his self-acquisitions. The plaintiffs are the son and daughters of the deceased daughter Nanjammal of the deceased Sadaya Gounder. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons and the fourth defendant is the daughter of the said Sadaya Gounder. The fifth and sixth defendants are the son and daughter of the deceased daughter Dhoddakkal of the deceased Sadaya Gounder. The defendants 7 and 8 are said to have been the agreement holders to purchase the land mentioned in Schedule A to C. The defendants 9 and 10 are the President and Secretary of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Colony, who were said to have been the intending purchasers of the land specified in the Schedule A to C, who inturn will distribute them among the staff members of the said bank for building houses. Since Sadaya Gounder had died intestate, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to the said properties.

2.2. The properties described in the Schedule A to D are the joint family properties and as such the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 6 are in joint possession. The properties mentioned in Schedule A, B and C are lands and hence they have been cultivating by the defendants 2 and 3. The property described in Schedule D is the house and therefore the defendants 2 and 3 have been residing therein. Since Sadaya Gounder had left three sons and three daughters, each one of them is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs together have inherited their late mother Nanjammal's 1/6th share in the entire suit properties described in Schedule A, B, C and D.

2.3. Suppressing the rights and interests of the plaintiffs in the suit properties, the defendants 1 to 3 are alleged to have entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants 7 and 8 to sell the properties specified in the Schedule A, B and C to the defendants 9 and 10 for the purpose of building houses for the staff of Indian Overseas Bank. The plaintiffs had issued a registered notice on 09.04.1984 to the defendants 1 to 3 claiming their 1/6th share.

2.4. On receipt of the said notice, the defendants 1 to 3, 7 and 9 had given a reply dated 16.04.1984 stating that the Sadaya Gounder had died only on 14.11.1934 and not in 1959 and as such the plaintiffs' mother Nanjammal had no right at all in the suit properties of their father Sadaya Gounder. They have also sated that since the plaintiffs' mother Nanjammal had no right in the suit properties, the plaintiffs cannot claim any sort of rights over the suit properties.

2.5. When the matter stood thus, that on 20.04.1984, the defendants 2 and 3 had approached the first plaintiff and represented that even though the plaintiffs had no right in the suit properties, they were prepared to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.10,000/-, provided they agree to sign a release deed.

2.6. That on 21.04.1984, the defendants 2 and 3 had arranged a Panchayat at Bommanampalayam and in that Panchayat they had baffled the first plaintiff by showing a death register extract pertaining to some other Sadaya Gounder of the said village, in furthermore of their contention that Sadaya Gounder had died only on 14.11.1934 and obtained the consent of the first plaintiff illegally to sign a release deed prepared immediately thereafter. Infact, the defendants 2 and 3 had played fraud upon the first plaintiff and deceitfully made him to sign in the rele