JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: These Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment made in A.S.No.154, 155 and 156 of 2002 dated 25.02.2005 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.2094 of 1993, 2111 of 1994 and 373 of 1993, respectively dated 15.02.2002 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.)

1. These three second appeals have been filed as against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in a common judgment in A.S.No.154, 155 and 156 of 2002 dated 25.02.2005 confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.2094 of 1993, 2111 of 1994 and 373 of 1993, respectively, dated 15.02.2002.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:-

(i) O.S.No.2094 of 1993 was filed by the first appellant in S.A.(MD)No.309 of 2006 for permanent injunction in respect the property in Survey Nos.82/10 and 82/11 covering an extent of 1.10 cents in Somarasampettai Village and in Survey No.80/2 to an extent of 42 cents in Malliampatti Vilalge. O.S.No.2111 of 1994 was filed by the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 in S.A.(MD)No.309 of 2006 herein for injunction in respect of the property in Survey No.80/2 to an extent of 42 cents, which is the second item of property in O.S.No.2094 of 1993. O.S.No.373 of 1993 was filed by the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 S.A.(MD)No.309 of 2006 for recovery of possession for the entire extent of 1.10 cents in Survey No.82/10 and 82/11.

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.373 of 1993 and 2111 of 1994, who are one and the same, that the entire property belongs to them. The defendants in the above suits are their close relatives. Due to their close proximity, when the first plaintiff had intended to execute a Will in favour of her daughter, the defendants under the pretext of helping the first plaintiff, suggested that a Will can be executed. Accordingly, by the suggestion of the defendants, a Will was prepared and the first plaintiff went to the Registration Office. While executing the Will on 12.03.1991, the defendants taking advantage of the illiteracy and the age of the first plaintiff, has also maneuvered to obtain thump impression in the document stated to be lease deed. The first plaintiff put thump impression in all the documents on the instructions of the defendants.

(iii) When the matter stood thus, the second defendant in the month of May, 1992 made an attempt to enter into the property claiming to be a tenant under the first plaintiff. Only at that time, the first plaintiff came to know that the defendants under the pretext of preparing a Will, have got the thump impression in the documents styled as lease deeds (yearly lease at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per year) and the lease deeds have been registered for a period of 10 years. Hence, it is the contention that the first plaintiff never intended to execute any such document and therefore, filed the above said suits for delivery of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of entire property to an extent of 1.10 acres. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the so called lease deed is created and the plaintiff never intended to execute the lease. In fact there was a mortgage agreement between the plaintiff and one Mamundi in respect of the land in S.F.No.80/2 to an extent of 0.42 cents for a sum of Rs.16,000/- and allowed the said Mamundi to be in possession.

(iv) In O.S.No.2094 of 1993, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction. The second defendant in her written statement denied the allegations of the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff is that lease deeds have been executed by the defendants voluntarily not as alleged by them in their plaint i