T RAVINDRAN, J.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2003 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.467 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. He acquired the same by virtue of the sale deeds dated 31.10.1941, 15.09.1957 and 22.05.1971 and the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff has three sons and one daughter and his children marriage had been celebrated and the children are living separately. The defendants 1 & 2, for quite some time, requested the first plaintiff to permit them to run the quarry industries in the plaint schedule properties and the first plaintiff was constrained to oblige the request of the defendants 1 & 2 and their father in view of the blood relationship and accordingly, the defendants 1 & 2 took the first plaintiff twice to the Sub Registrar's Office, Sulur and got executed some documents representing that they required some power of attorney from the first plaintiff in order to run the quarry industries and believing the representation of the defendants 1 & 2, the first plaintiff complied the request and need of the defendants 1 & 2 and while the facts remain so, for the past two months, the defendants 1 & 2 started ill-treating the first plaintiff taking advantage of his old age and gone one step further and failed to provide food and shelter to him and also proclaiming that they had got executed the several deeds from the first plaintiff with respect to the plaint schedule properties and following the same, the first plaintiff being an old aged person and totally a deaf man, fed up with the activities of the defendants 1 & 2, applied for the copies of the documents from the Sub Registrar office, Sulur and on a perusal of the same, came to understand that the defendants 1 & 2 had got executed deeds of sale as well as the settlement deed from him under the guise of getting the power of attorney and the first plaintiff had executed the abovesaid three documents on different days without knowing the implications or the nature and contents of the said documents and the defendants 1 & 2 had played fraud upon him and the defendants 1 & 2 had accordingly, obtained two sale deeds and one settlement deed from him as detailed in the plaint, with reference to the plaint schedule properties viz., sale deed dated 27.08.1992, sale deed dated 15.07.1993 and settlement deed 15.07.1993 and the abovesaid documents are void as the first plaintiff had executed them without knowing the contents and implications of the said documents and without any intention of creating interest in respect of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the defendants and the abovesaid documents had not been given effect to and the defendants have no better title, interest or right in respect of the properties comprised in the abovesaid documents and as the defendants 1 & 2 had obtained the abovesaid documents fraudulently from the first plaintiff in the guise of requiring some documents for the purpose of running the quarry industries, hence according to the first plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. It is found that pending the suit, the first plaintiff had died and his LRs viz., his two sons, daughter and wife had been impleaded as the LRs of the deceased first plaintiff along with the third defendant, the other son and thereafter, the plaint also proceeded that the first plaintiff died on 17.07.2000 leaving behind a registered Will dated 31.10.1994 and under the Will above stated, the first