Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The property of an aged lady, whose mental health is now in question, is the subject matter of litigation between her siblings.

2. A land measuring 10 grounds and 2185 sq.ft in Old Survey No.447, R.S.No.3173/19, Kilpauk Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai, was purchased by Mrs. Annamma Chinnan jointly with two other persons vide a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1958, which was subsequently partitioned vide two partition deeds dated 03.11.1958 and 04.10.1961. The result was that she became the absolute owner of 5525 sq.ft of land, on which she raised constructions.

3. Annamma has two daughters, who joined her as plaintiffs in the suit. Her son Chinnan Sherry passed away and was survived by a daughter, impleaded as the first defendant in the suit, while his widow was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. Annamma is alleged to have executed a Settlement Deed duly registered on 15.8.2008 in favour of her granddaughter from her son, who in turn executed a Sale Deed dated 13.06.2011 in favour of defendants 3 to 6. It is the case of the original plaintiffs that no such settlement deed was ever executed by Annamma and her signatures were also forged.

4. It is the case of the original plaintiffs (appellants before us) that Annamma was residing in the first floor of the suit property, while her deceased son and the first two defendants were residing in the ground floor, as the relationship was never cordial. It is, in order, to assist her deceased son for obtaining financial assistance from banks that Annamma had agreed to offer her property as collateral security for business loan in the year 1997 to the Bank of India. On the demise of her son, the business came to a standstill and she expressed her wish that her property be substituted as security by her daughter-in-law. The plaint also alleges that due to the sudden demise of her son, Annamma became quite disturbed and went into deep depression, with the result that her two daughters had to take her to Vellore for treatment and that ultimately had to shift her. The allegations are also of her daughter-in-law taking advantage of her ill-health made her to sign several blank documents.

5. The second limb of facts relate to allegation of fraud in respect of two settlement deeds being executed on 30.03.2011, duly registered in terms thereof. Shares have been given to her two daughters, as well as to her grand-daughter from her son, while Annamma retained her life-interest.

6. The action taken by Annamma is to protect her property which is subject matter of averments in the plaint. Suffice to say that it is the stand of the first two defendants in the suit that all these were written by the daughters and Annamma only affixed her signature. Interestingly, the nature of allegations affecting the mental health of Annamma would certainly have a bearing even on these subsequent documents, which are two settlement deeds, though they are broadly in line with the ultimate law of succession which would arise after the life time of Annamma.

7. Insofar as the controversy in the present appeal is concerned, the order passed appointing the original plaintiff no.2 (appellant no.2 herein) as the guardian ad litem of Annamma, being plaintiff no.3 (appellant no.3 herein) came to be assailed by the first two respondents seeking recall and revocation of the order passed in A.No.5303 of 2012 dated 02.01.2013. (vide application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).

8. The relief prayed for in the suit is for declaring the settlement deed dated 15.08.2008 as a rank forgery and consequently the sale deed dated 13.06.2011 to be declared null and void, apart from seeking partition of the property and damages.

9. The case of the first two defendants is that there is no dispute as to whom the property would devolve by succession after the life time of Annamma, and the two sets of parties,