The main legal point established is that the aspect of cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed should be addressed in the main Appeal and not in a separate Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

1. The Petitioners/Appellants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying permission of this Court to file a petition to cancel the Relinquishing Deed bearing Document No.1471 of 1984 dated 23.04.1984, registered at Raja Street, SRO, Coimbatore -1 executed by the Respondents 1, 2, father of the 10th Respondent - Chinne Gounder illegally and fraudulently.

2. The 1st Petitioner/ 1st Appellant has appeared before this Court as party in person. The Petitioners 2 and 3/Appellants 2 and 3 are represented by the 1st Petitioner/1st Appellant as their Power of Attorney.

3. The Petitioners/Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 to 3 have preferred the Appeal A.S.No.60 of 1990 on the file of this Court, being aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.05.1988 in O.S.No.549 of 1984 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore.

4. The trial Court in O.S.No.549 of 1984 has framed 4 issues in the main case. The 1st issue is whether the Release Deed dated 23.04.1984 executed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 is a true and valid one and also whether it will bind the Appellants?

5. Admittedly, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.549 of 1984 on the file of the trial Court praying for the relief of partition in the main suit.

6. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit without costs. Moreover, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Release Deed-Ex.B.1 dated 23.04.1984 executed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 to 3 in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 is a true and valid one and the same will also bind the Appellants/Plaintiffs.

7. It is the contention of the 1st Petitioner/1st Appellant that Ex.B.1 document dated 23.04.1984 is not a Release Deed and it is only a Relinquishment Deed and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence let in by the Appellants/Plaintiffs in regard to the execution of Exs.B.1 and B.2 documents etc., and as a matter of fact, Sadaya Gounder died in the year 1959 and not in the year 1934 as evidenced by records and asserted by the Defendants, but this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective.

8. The 1st Petitioner /1st Appellant contends that the Plaint A to D Schedules absolutely belonged to late Sadaya Gounder who as a natural grandfather of the Plaintiffs, they being the children of Nanjammal D/o Sadaya Gounder and indeed, Sadaya Gounder purchased the plaint Schedule properties as per Exs.A.2 to A.4 dated 18.04.1935, 20.11.1938, 26.03.2943 and if really Sadaya Gounder expired on 14.11.1934, as asserted by Defendants 2 to 5, how it was possible for him to have Sale Deeds in favour of Sadaya Gounder in the year 1934 and 1943 and that apart, if Sadaya Gounder has really died in the year 1934, he could not have purchased the properties mentioned in Exs.A.2 to A.4 documents.

9. The pith and substance of the contentions of the Petitioners/ Appellants/Plaintiffs is that the trial Court has committed an error in upholding Exs.B.1 to B.2 documents said to have been executed by them and in short, there are overwhelming oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Appellants/Plaintiffs in the trial of the suit and that the trial Court has gone wrong in dismissing the suit.

10. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the present Appeal A.S.No.60 of 1990 before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.549 of 1984 dated 10.05.1988 and the same is pending as on date and the relief prayed for by the Petitioners/Appellants/Plaintiffs in C.M.P.No.1269 of 2010 viz., permitting the Petitioner to cancel the Relinquishment Deed dated 23.04.1984 is a subject matter of the suit as one of the issues framed in the trial Court and since the main Appeal is pending before this Court, the Petitioners