A document is void if executed based on a fraudulent misrepresentation about a person's existence, affecting legal rights and ownership.

ORDER

Review petitions have been filed against the common judgment in R.S.A.Nos.809/2013 and 810/2013 dated 17.11.2021. Those Regular Second Appeals were directed against the common judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013 in A.S.No.180/2007 and 181/2007 of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor which arose from the common judgment and decree dated 10.10.2002 in O.S.No.44/1997 and 112/1997 of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor.

2. Appellants 2 to 4 in R.S.A.No.809/2013 filed R.P.No.401/2022. First appellant in R.S.A.No.809/2013 expired 5 in R.S.A.No.810 of 2013 pending the R.S.A. and the review petitioners are his legal heirs.

3. Additional appellants 2 to 4 in R.S.A.No.810/2013 filed Review Petition No.405/2022.

4. O.S.No.44/1997 has been filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and for damages. Originally the plaint schedule property was part of property held by the family of the defendants. Plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property as per Exts.A2 and B4 sale deeds executed by the brother of the defendant, Narayanan Nair who is no more and his legal heirs are additional respondents 2 and 3. It is alleged in the plaint that from 1964 onwards the whereabouts of the defendant was not known to anybody and everybody was under the belief that he is no more. On that belief on the presumption available under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, his brother Narayanan Nair sold the property to the plaintiffs on receiving valid consideration. In 1995, defendant reappeared and raised claim over the property. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed 6 in R.S.A.No.810 of 2013 O.S.No.518/1995 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor and that was ultimately compromised in a 'Neethimela'. Thereafter, in violation of the settlement, defendant trespassed upon the plaint schedule property and committed waste and hence the suit was filed.

5. Defendant filed written statement contending that plaintiffs have no right or possession over the 93 cents of property scheduled in the plaint. It is also contended that, as per the Partition Deed No.1277/1957, 'A' schedule in the Partition Deed was allotted to the share of the defendant and his brother Narayanan Nair and another brother Chellappan Nair and mother Gouriamma. The brother Chellappan Nair died intestate as a bachelor and mother also died intestate. Hence the entire property was devolved upon the defendant and Narayanan Nair. The defendant was staying at Mananthavady for sometime and he occasionally used to come to the scheduled property. Narayanan Nair executed two documents with respect to 31 cents each in favour of 2nd plaintiff and a neighbour Ramakrishnan in 7 in R.S.A.No.810 of 2013 the year 1974 and another document in the name of plaintiffs in the year 1991. It is further contended that, when he came to know about the above Sale Deeds, he demanded partition. But Narayanan Nair refused to partition the property. The sale deeds are results of fraud and collusion practiced between Narayanan Nair and the first plaintiff.

6. He also filed O.S.No.112/1997 against the father of the above appellants and the brother Narayanan Nair seeking for cancellation of Ext.A2 Sale Deed and recovery of possession and consequential reliefs.

7. All the contentions in the written statement filed in O.S.No.44/1997 have been reiterated and it is also contended that the