JUDGMENT :

R. Tharani, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides.

2. This Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No. 1 of 2013, dated 12.4.2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 320 of 2007, dated 20.11.2012 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.

3. The Appellant herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the Suit. The Appellant herein has filed a Suit in O.S. No. 320 of 2007 before the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli seeking for a prayer of declaration that the Sale Deeds, dated 24.9.2003 and 31.10.2003 respectively are null and void and for Permanent Injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit. Against the Judgment and Decree, the Appellant filed an Appeal in A.S. No.1 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Principal District Judge dismissed the Appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Against the Judgment and Decree, the Appellant has filed this present Second Appeal.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the wife of late R. Sundaram. They have five daughters and one son. The Plaintiff is filing the Suit for and on behalf of all the Legal Heirs of Sundaram. The Suit properties are the Self-acquired properties of Sundaram. The properties Items 1 to 3 in A Schedule properties were purchased by Sundaram and one Palaniappan. The properties were orally partition among Sundaram and his brother Palaniappan. Later Sundaram became the absolute Owner of the B Schedule property by way of registered Release Deed, dated 24.9.2003. Palaniappan died and subsequently Sundaram also died on 23.6.2007. The First Defendant claims right over the Suit properties alleging that he has purchased the properties from Sundaram and the Defendants 2 to 6, who are the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan. The Plaintiff, Palaniappan and their children were living together in A Schedule property by running a Bricks Chamber in the B Schedule property. After the death of Sundaram, the Plaintiff is running the Bricks business in the Suit property. On 24.9.2003, Sundaram informed the Plaintiff that he was going to the Registrar's Office to obtain a Release Deed from the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan in respect of B Schedule property. The Defendants 2 to 6 obtained the signatures of Sundaram in the written Stamp Papers representing the same as Release Deed but actually obtained signatures in the Sale Deed in favour of the First Defendant. The sale was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

5. The 7th Defendant is the brother of Mani, who is the husband of the First Defendant. The 7th Defendant is also a Partner in the business with Sundaram and he lent Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to Sundaram to meet out his urgent expenses and he asked Sundaram to execute a registered Mortgage Deed. Accordingly Sundaram went to the Registrar's office and signed the documents without knowing that it is a Sale Deed. Sundaram was cheated by the Defendants and the Sale Deeds are non est. The Sale Deeds were not acted upon and the Plaintiff and her children are in possession of the properties. Sundaram was carrying on business in the B Schedule for the past 15 years but in the Sale Deed the Brick Chamber was not mentioned and it is shown only as a Punja land. The Defendants 1 & 7 are attempting to interfere with the Plaintiffs possession over the Suit properties by trespassing. Hence, the Suit is filed for declarating that the Sale Deeds are null and void and non est and for Permanent Injunction against the Defendants 1 & 7.

6. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the Defendants 1 & 7 as adopted by the Defendants 2 to 5 are as follows:

(i) It is false to state that the Suit properties are the self acquired properties of Sundaram and that Sundaram and his brother orally partitioned the properties among themse