A suit for partition ignoring a registered deed is not maintainable where the document is voidable rather than void. A party must seek a declaration to cancel such an instrument within the limitation period upon gaining knowledge of its existence, supported by specific pleadings of fraud.

COMMON JUDGMENT

1.The suit for partition in O.S.No.6 of 2007 was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Puducherry, Karaikkal. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 30.03.2010 passed in the said suit.

2. In the suit, the appellant in A.S.No.708 of 2010 is the 4^th defendant; the appellant in A.S.No.817 of 2010 is the 1^st defendant; and the appellant in A.S.No.579 of 2022 is the 3^rd defendant. The successful plaintiffs 1 to 6 are arrayed as respondents 1 to 6 in all these appeals. The appeal in A.S.No.694 of 2010 filed by the 2^nd defendant dismissed for default on 15.02.2019.

3. The plaintiffs are the wife and daughters of Krishnasami Pillai.

The 1^st defendant is his son. The case of the plaintiffs is that Krishnasamy Pillai died intestate on 4.8.1990, leaving the plaintiffs and the first defendant. According to the customary Hindu Law in Pondicherry and Karaikal, after the death of Krishnasamy, all his legal heirs succeeded his estate equally being the co-owners. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are in possession and enjoyment of properties as tenants in common as each co-sharers having a definite share of 1/7 in the properties.

3 (ii). It is also the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Krishnasamy Pillai, the first defendant who is the only male heir in the family approached the plaintiffs and asked them to authorize him with a power to carry on business of his father at Mahe, Seychelles and to manage the properties and bank accounts. Since the 3^rd and the 6^th plaintiffs were minors, all other plaintiffs gave a general power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 17.9.1990 which was notarized by Thiru S. Ameerudeen, Advocate, Karaikal. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after a five days, the first defendant again approached the 1^st plaintiff and other plaintiffs that the power deed given by the plaintiffs was insufficient to maintain the bank account of Krishnasamy Pillai and he required an another power deed. The plaintiffs honestly believed the first defendant as he will not breach the trust and faith reposed upon him, except the 3^rd and 6^th plaintiffs all the other plaintiffs and Marimuthammal signed in the document and put their thumb impression as directed by the first defendant and the same was obtained by the first defendant fraudulently and by misrepresentation and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs.

3(iii). The plaintiffs came to know about the alleged release deed dated 8.10.1990 only on 20.11.2006 when the second defendant entered into the suit property and tried to make some improvements in the property and the first plaintiff lodged a complaint at Kottucherry Police Station against the 2^nd defendant. On enquiry, the plaintiffs were informed that they executed a release deed on 8.10.1990 in favour of the first defendant. Even after the alleged execution of the release deed, the plaintiffs and the first defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as tenants in common and the release deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/7 share and for mesne profit.

4. Per contra, it is the ca