Challenge, in these second appeals, is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 25.11.2003 passed in A.S.Nos.160 & 161 of 2002 respectively on the file of the First Additional District Court, Erode confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.2002 passed in O.S.Nos.286 of 1999 & 136 of 1993 respectively on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

2. The second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law;

“(i). In the face of the recitals found in the title deeds relating to the property in question and the oral evidence of the plaintiff, which is in total corroboration to the recitals in the title deed itself, which clearly establishes that the property in question is the separate acquisition of Muthusamy Gounder, has not the lower appellate Court committed an illegality in reversing the finding contrary to the evidence on record?

(ii). If the property is held to be self-acquired property of Muthusamy Gounder, would the Release Deed, relied upon by the defendants to exclude the plaintiff from the line of succession, be legal?

(iii). Is the finding of the Courts below that the Will has been duly proved is contrary to the evidence on record?”.

3. Further, this Court had also formulated the further substantial questions of law to be determined in these second appeals :

“(i). Whether the judgment of the Courts below are vitiated in that they have dismissed the suit for partition merely on the ground, that the Appellants have released their right in the suit properties under Ex.B6 Release Deed, whereas the suspicion surrounding the execution and registration of this document has not been dispelled by the respondents?

(ii). Whether the registration of Ex.B6 Release Deed can be held to be valid in law, when it has not been presented for execution by the so-called executants to this document to this document?

(iii). When the appellants have denied execution of Ex.B6 Release Deed, and the very fact, that the stamp papers on which this document has been typed been obtained several months prior to the execution of this document, but also from different placed, then, whether respondents 1 & 2 have discharged their duty to remove the suspicion surrounding execution of this document?”

4. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the fact of the case in detail.

5. The suit in O.S.No.136 of 1993 has been laid by the first appellant for partition.

6. The suit in O.S.No.286 of 1999 has been laid by the appellants for the cancellation of the release deed dated 11.09.1992 and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

7. The first appellant is the wife and the appellants 2 & 3 are the daughters of the deceased Muthusamy Gounder. The deceased Muthusamy Gounder had a son by name Thulasimani. The contesting respondents Sakunthala and Sudha are the wife and daughter of the deceased Thulasimani. Claiming that the properties involved in the matter belonged to the deceased Muthusamy Gounder as his separate properties and accordingly, it is stated that Muthusamy Gounder having died intestate leaving the appellants and the respondents as his legal representatives, accordingly, the first appellant had laid the suit against the contesting respondents as well as the other appellants for partition in O.S.No.136 of 1993. The contesting respondents resisted the above-said suit by putting forth the plea that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of Muthusamy Gounder and accordingly, the first appellant and the other appellants are not entitled to the share in the suit properties as put forth by them and further, it is also pleaded by the contesting respondents that the appellants had executed a released deed dated 11.09.1992 as regards their share in the family properties for a valid consideration in favour of the deceased Thulasimani and further, it is pleaded by the contesting respond