Mere attestation of a document would not denote or connote that the attester relinquished whatever right he was having over the property covered under the said document attested by him.

1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1980 passed by the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Masdras, in O.S.No.2733 of 1965, which is one for declaration and permanent injunction.

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

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

a) The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants

(a) declaring that the sale deed dated 25.7.1937 is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 to 8 from dealing with the property altering its status-quo to the detriment of the plaintiffs vested rights in the property covered by the sale deed (item No.2 in the plaint schedule)

(b) That the sale deed dated 27.8.1943 is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining the 9th defendant from in any way dealing with the property and alter its status-quo to the detriment of the plaintiffs vested right in the property covered by sale deed viz., item No.4 in the plaint schedule.

(c) That the sale deed dated 7.5.1965 and 14.5.1965 are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 10 and 11 from in any way dealing with the property and altering the status-quo relating to the property covered by the sale deed viz., item No.5 in the plaint schedule.

(d) For such other or further reliefs that may deed fit and proper to this Honourable Court in the circumstances of the case

(e) For cost of the suit against all the defendants.

(f) that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the first defendant is entitled to a life-interest in the sum of Rs.18,21,121.50 being the proportionate compensation awarded and deposited into Court in L.A.C.No.223/1965, City Civil Court, Madras, for the portion in R.S.No.779/2 under the settlement deed dated 7.6.1927."

(extracted as such)

b) D1 filed the written statement explaining and expounding the facts involved in this case, as he happened to be the father of the plaintiffs.

c) D2's written statement was adopted by D3 and they also filed the additional written statement. D4 to D8 filed a separate written statement. D10 and D11 filed written statements and D12 filed one other written statement, which was adopted by D13 and D14.

d) The trial court framed the relevant issues.

e] During trial, the second plaintiff examined herself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A28. On the defendants' side, the first, third, tenth and sixth defendants, namely, Rajabather Mudaliar, Kalyani Ammal, V.Thanikachalam and T.B.Dayanidhi examined themselves as D.W.1, D.W.3, D.W.5 and D.W.6 respectively, along with D.W.2 and D.W.4 and marked Ex.B1 to B79.

f) Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal on various grounds.

5. The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the case of the plaintiffs could be set out as follows, for the disposal of this appeal.

(i) The suit properties originally belonged to one Manicka Mudaliar. His wife was Manonmani Ammal. The couple had no children. In fact, Manicka Mudaliar intended to adopt one Kannappan.

In the meanwhile, he, out of love and affection for his sister's son, namely, RajabatharD1 herein, executed a settled deed Ex.A1 dated 7.6.1927 settling the following properties, including items 2 and 4 of the suit properties as under:

“TAMIL”

forD1's life and thereafter to his children on their attaining majority. No doubt, as on the date of the settlement deed, the said Rajabather was a minor. According to the plaintiffs, the said settlem