The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the intention and spirit of a document in its interpretation, as well as the principle that possession follows title.

1. A.S.No.682 of 2009 is focussed by the plaintiff and A.S.No.689 of 2009 is focussed by the defendants as against the judgement and decree dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore, in O.S.No.129 of 2006, which is one for rendition of accounts; for setting aside the sale deeds and for permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

(i) The appellant in A.S.No.682 of 2009 filed the suit O.S.No.129 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:

"to pass a decree:

a. directing the first defendant to render true and proper accounts to the plaintiff for all monies received by him in respect of sale of the sites set out in the schedule 'A' hereunder:

b. setting aside the sale deed dated 27.12.2004 (Regtistered as Doc.No.6927/04) in favour of the second defendant as being unauthorised, invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff:

c. setting aside the sale deed dated 6.10.2005 (registered as Doc.No.6663/04) in favour of the second defendant as being unauthorised, invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff.

d. for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from in any way encumbering or alienating the property belonging to the plaintiff more fully setout and described in the schedule 'C' hereunder.

e. directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit and." (extracted as such)

as against the defendants, who are appellants herein in A.S.689 of 2009.

(ii) The defendants filed the written statement and resisted the suit.

(iii) Issues were framed. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no document was filed on the defendants side. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked as Court documents.

(iv) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit by granting the reliefs as prayed under clause (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint, by setting aside the two sale deeds and granting injunction, but rejecting the prayer for rendition of accounts.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff as well as the defendants preferred separately these two appeals respectively.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff, by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal in A.S.No.582 of 2009, would advance his arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The indubitable and indisputable fact, is that the plaintiff happened to be the sister of D1; D2 is the wife of D1. The plaintiff executed Ex.A4, dated 12.12.1986-the General Power of Attorney in favour of D1, authorising him to manage her immovable properties described therein; carve out into plots and sell them to various persons and get the sale deeds also registered in favour of them.

(ii) While so, it so happened that on 12.12.1990, the plaintiff executed Ex.X2-the General Power of Attorney in favour of the same D1 authorising him to sell her properties and also empowering him to appear on her behalf in a different pending suit O.S.No.72 of 1992.

(iii) Thereafter the plaintiff, as per Ex.A5-the cancellation deed, dated 11.11.1998, cancelled the power deed-Ex.A4 dated 12.12.1986. However in Ex.A5-the cancellation deed, the power deed-Ex.X2 dated 12.12.1990, was not found referred to.

(iv) It appears, taking undue advantage of the said missing of reference to the power deed-Ex.X2 in Ex.A5, D1 in collusion with D2, who is none but the wife of D1, executed the sale deed in favour of D2, which is a sham and nominal document. D1 also sold various other portions to third parties.

(v) The plaintiff did choose to restrict her claim only in respect of the suit