JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. Both these Original Side Appeals (OSA) have been filed as against the common order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Appeal Nos. 1469 and 1470 of 2011 in E.P. No. 511 of 2008 in C.S. No. 770 of 1997, whereby the learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the learned Master in the application filed by the appellant herein in A. No. 1213 of 2009 in E.P. No. 511 of 2008 in C.S. No. 770 of 1997, declaring that the decree dated 06.07.2006 passed by this Court in C.S. No. 770 of 1997 is non-est in the eye of law and the same is inexecutable and the learned Single Judge had also set aside the consequential order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the learned Master dismissing E.P. No. 511 of 2008 in C.S. No. 770 of 1997 filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by Shatrasala Sharath Babu, the respondent herein.

2. Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in these appeals are as follows:

(a) One Sathrasala Venkatram (since deceased) had filed a suit before this Court in C.S. No. 770 of 1997 as against the appellant herein and six others. It is the case of the said Sathrasala Venkatram in the plaint that he is the owner of the land and building at Door No. 140, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai and the said property was allotted to him in a family partition deed, dated 31.08.1958, registered as Document No. 1796 of 1958 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai. He was a widower. The building consists of ground floor and two upper floors. He had let out the ground floor of the building to two tenants and had been running a lodge and letting out rooms in the first and second floors of the building and was residing in a portion of the second floor.

(b) The third defendant in the said suit, namely M. Selvi, continued as the only servant of the plaintiff-Sathrasala Venkatram. By reason of her good behaviour, she developed considerable trust and confidence in the mind of the plaintiff and she was given a free hand in almost all the matters. The said Selvi (third defendant) not only attended to the cooking and other domestic needs of the plaintiff, but also slowly started attending to the other activities of the plaintiff like going to the Bank, encashing cheques, collecting rents, etc. In due course of time, she had developed close friendship with the first defendant (Shantilal Kothari) in the suit, who is the appellant herein, who is in occupation of a portion in the ground floor of the suit building. By reason of trust and confidence which the plaintiff had on the third defendant in the suit, she had taken possession of several documents and records of the plaintiff including bank cheque books, pass-books and other papers and she was virtually in-charge of every aspect of the plaintiff's activities. She used to collect rents and deposit the same in the Bank and also draw out cash from the Bank for meeting the expenses of the plaintiff. On the suggestion of the third defendant, the plaintiff has signed blank cheques and receipts and the third defendant-Selvi was keeping them with herself. Thus, the third defendant had virtually taken charge of all the affairs of the plaintiff. By her prompt attention to all the matters, she made the plaintiff not only to trust her implicitly, but also to depend on her totally.

(c) While so, the plaintiff was admitted in hospital by the third defendant for some ailment. The plaintiff was discharged from the hospital and he was confined to his bed room by the third defendant in the second floor and thus, the plaintiff was totally isolated. Due to old age infirmity and helplessness, the plaintiff has to accept every suggestion of the third defendant without realising that the first defendant and the third defendant had been conspiring to knock away the property belonging to him. In January 1997, the appellant herein (first defendant) and the third defendant came along with some other persons to the