JUDGMENT

The appellants are the defendants 13 and 15, who are none other than the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant. The first respondent herein was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The other respondents were the defendants before the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3 (a). The brief facts, which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that; the plaintiff has purchased items 1 and 2 schedule properties from the first defendant through two different registered Sale Deeds dated 07.12.2006 and 11.12.2006. The plaintiff further submits that in pursuance of the said purchase, the Revenue records have been mutated in the name of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has been paying the electricity charges and other tax dues to the local bodies. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant viz., the deceased Valliammal was an assertive woman and having good health. Based upon her request, even after purchase the plaintiff permitted her to reside in the suit property for a period of three months without any rent. However, the first defendant requested the plaintiff further time, and as on the date of filing of the suit, the first defendant was in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(b). The plaintiff further submits that the 8th defendant is residing in one of the house in the II Schedule property namely, the 5th item. The 8th defendant, with an intention to grab the property of the first defendant, got a Will executed in his name by the first defendant, thereby, bequeathing large extent of Nanja land. In the meanwhile, taking averse with the sale made by the first defendant, the 8th defendant has hatched conspiracy against this plaintiff by unduely influencing the first defendant. Thereby, they were attempting to cut the trees stands in the schedule property.

(c) The plaintiff further submits that, with false and untenable plea, the first defendant gave a police complaint to the 11th defendant. Wherein, it was complained by the first defendant that the plaintiff's sale deed are not supported by consideration. Based upon the false complaint, the 11th defendant namely, the police have been compelling the plaintiff to convey the property in the name of the Trust to be created by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the 8th defendant is one of the witnesses in the Sale Deeds dated 07.12.2006 and 11.12.2006. Thus, this plaintiff submits that he is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned properties. However, the 8th defendant is not admitting the title over the plaintiff.

Hence, he come forward with the suit for declaration and for possession.

4 (a). The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by contending that the alleged Sale Deeds dated 07.12.2006 and 11.12.2006 are not true and valid, and that this defendant, without knowing the character and contents of the documents, have been induced to sign the same. Further, while registering the document, even the Sub Registrar did not explain the character of the document. It is the further submission of this defendant that she is impaired by hard of hearing and also having loss of memory due to her ageing. It is the specific submission of the first defendant that she did not receive any sale consideration from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not a man of means, and that recovery suits are pending against him.

(b). This defendant further submits that, the name transfer of the suit property by the local body will not bind upon this plaintiff as no notice was served to her. As such, it is the submission of this defendant that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and she has been in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the sum and substance of the first defendant’s contention is that, while signing the sale deed, the first defendant’s mind did not go with the execution of the document. Hence, as per the