Documents executed under familial trust must meet legal standards of consent to avoid being deemed void; misrepresentation necessitates formal cancellation procedures.

JUDGMENT :

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1.1 These twin appeals were preferred challenging the decree passed in A.S.22 of 2019 and A.S 23 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Court, Tiruppur. The appellants were successful before the trial court, but suffered a reversal in their fortune before the first appellate court.

1.2 The duel is between the father and one of his sons on one side, the appellants), with his other son on the other side (the respondent). Both the sides filed two separate suits. The details are as below:

a) The first of the suits is O.S.No.59/2018 (originally O.S.No.62/2009 before District Munsif Court, Kangeyam) and it was laid by the appellants herein before the Sub Court, Kangeyam. This suit is laid for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs based on Ext.A1 and Ext.A30, partition deeds, and for ancillary reliefs of prohibitory injunction. There are two schedules of properties disclosed in the plaint as A and B schedules, and they respectively represent the properties that the first and the second plaintiff had respectively obtained in the aforesaid partition deeds.

b) The defendant in the said suit, for his part has laid O.S.No.60/2018 before the Sub Court, Kangeyam (originally O.S.No.178/2011 before Sub Court, Dharapuram) for declaration of his title (not based on Ext.A1 and Ext.A30 partition deeds, but on the basis of Ext.B2 = A10 settlement deed), and for recovery of possession and also for a partial cancellation of Exts.A4 = B12 sale deed dated 22.02.1999 and Ext A5 = B13 sale deeds which his father had executed on the strength of the Power of Attorney documents that he had executed.

1.3 Both the suits were tried together and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.59/2018. After due appreciation of evidence before it, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.59/2018 filed by the appellants, and dismissed O.S.No.60/2018 filed by the respondent.

1.4 The decrees of the trial Court triggered two first appeals at the instance of the respondent. They are A.S.No.23/2019 (against O.S.No.59/2018) and A.S.No.22/2019 (against O.S.No.60/2018). Before the first appellate Court, the fortune shifted as both the first appeals came to be allowed.

1.5 Challenging the said decrees of the first appellate court, the present set of second appeals are filed. For narrative convenience, parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial court judgement. Accordingly, appellants would be termed as the plaintiffs and the respondent would be referred to as the defendant.

The Pleadings:

A. Case of the Plaintiffs:

2.1 Facts narration covers two specific period: (a) that which had happened between 1959 and 1972; (b) Between 1993 and till the filing of the suit.

2.2. The facts that fall within 1959 and 1972, and they are:

a) The suit properties and others originally belonged to a certain Ramasamy Gounder. Ramasamy Gounder was married to Chellathal and they had two children, a son, the first plaintiff herein, and a daughter named Parvathathal.

b) While so, on 07.07.1959 vide Ext.B1, Ramasamy Gounder, his wife Chellathal, and their two children namely, the first plaintiff and Parvathathal entered into a partition. Both the first plaintiff and Parvathathal were minors then.

c) Under Ext. B1 partition, A-schedule property was allotted to Ramasamy Gounder and B-schedule was allotted to the first plaintiff. While C- schedule was allotted to Parvathathal, D - schedule was allotted to the share of Chellathal.

d) The A-schedule under Ext.B1 partition deals with several items of properties. Years rolled by. The first plaintiff had married one Bhanumathi, and they had b