JUDGMENT :

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

The Second Appeal has been filed against judgement and decree dated 08.03.1993 in A.S.No.9 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kancheepuram, confirming the judgement and decree dated 16.07.1990 in O.S.No.338 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Kancheepuram.

2. The Appeal Suit has been filed against judgement and decree dated 08.03.1993 in O.S.No.386 of 1990, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Kancheepuram.

3. The plaintiff's case in O.S. No. 338 of 1985 is that the suit schedule property was purchased by Mrs. Venkamma Bai, wife of Mr. Narayana Sah. Out of the said wedlock, the couple had begotten one son, Mr. Venku Sah and four daughters, namely, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. The property was purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.05.1942 for valuable consideration. The aforesaid Sale Deed was executed in the name of Mrs.Venkamma Bai both in her individual capacity and as guardian of her then minor son, Venku Sah. However, the entire sale consideration was paid by Venkamma Bai, as Venku Sah being a minor at the time of purchase had not contributed any amount towards the acquisition of the property. It is averred that, Mrs.Venkamma Bai treated and enjoyed the suit property as her absolute property until her death in the year of 1959, leaving behind her husband, Mr. Narayana Sah and her children as her legal heirs. Consequently, each of the legal heirs became entitled to a 1/6th share in the suit property. Thereafter, upon the subsequent demise of Narayana Sah, his 1/6th share devolved upon his children, namely the plaintiff, Mr. Venku Sah and defendants 2 to 4. Accordingly, the plaintiff contends that she, along with her siblings, namely, Mr.Venku Sah and defendants 2 to 4 became entitled to a 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule property.

4. Subsequently Mr.Venku Sah died leaving behind his wife, the 1st defendant, as his sole legal heir. Thereafter, the 5th defendant, claimed to have obtained a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 91 of 1978 against the suit property on the basis of a mortgage which was allegedly executed by Mr.Venku Sah and initiated proceedings to bring the property to auction sale. The plaintiff and her sisters, namely defendants 2 to 4, filed a claim petition objecting to the same. During the pendency of the claim proceedings, the 5^th defendant contended that Mr.Narayan Sah, the father of the plaintiff, Venku Sah and defendants 2 to 4, had executed a Release Deed dated 02.07.1962 in favour of Venku Sah and that pursuant to the aforesaid Release Deed, the plaintiff and her sisters had no right or interest in the suit property. However it was contented that the plaintiff was unaware of the alleged Release Deed and the same was executed when she was a minor, hence it was contended that notwithstanding the execution of the aforesaid Release Deed, the same is void and not binding on the plaintiff’s rights in the suit property.

5. The plaintiff further contended that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Accordingly by virtue of such uninterrupted possession, she continues to be entitled to her share in the property. On the other hand, defendants 6 and 7 claim rights over the suit property on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 12.07.1984, allegedly executed by the 1st defendant. It is further averred that notwithstanding the alleged Sale Deed executed in favour of defendants 6 and 7, the plaintiff would continue to be entitled to her 1/5th share in the suit schedule property, as the said document is not binding upon her. Therefore, as the result of interference with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by respondents 1 and 5 to 7, the plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No. 338 of 1985 seeking a preliminary decree with regard to the partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit schedule property and a consequential decree of permanent injunction against