JUDGMENT: Defendants 5 and 6 in O.S. No.1625 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupathur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 6/20 share in the suit items. Defendants 1 to 4 are the two brothers and the two sisters of the plaintiff. Defendants 5 and 6, who are the appellants, are the wife and son of the plaintiff, though the plaintiff disputes that they are his wife and son. The seventh defendant Muniammal is the daughter of the plaintiff. Defendants 8 to 10 are claimed by the plaintiff to be respectively his wife and children. 2. His case in the plaint was as follows: The plaintiff’s father Avala Chinnappa Mandiri and his three brothers constituted a Hindu joint family. About 23 years prior to the suit, they partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed dated 24.7.1956. The property got by the plaintiff’s father in that partition, became the joint family property of the plaintiff, his father Avala Chinnappa Mandiri and other sons defendants 1 and 2. All of them constituted a Hindu joint family family. They were all living as a joint family. The plaintiff’s mother Chinnammal died three years prior to the suit. At the time of the plaintiff’s father’s death, the suit properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff married the eighth defendant about 24 years prior to the suit at Sathambakkam village. Defendants 9 and 10 were born to them. The eighth defendant alone is his legally wedded wife. About 23 years prior to the suit, the fifth defendant developed intimacy with the plaintiff and she was living in a separate house. Out of this intimacy, defendants 6 and 7 were born. ONly defendants 9 and 10 and another Malliga are his legitimate children. Defendants 6 and 7 were born out of the illicit intimacy between the plaintiff and the fifth defendant. Out of completion and practice of undue influence, the plaintiff was made to execute a gift deed in favour of the fifth defendant in respect of his undivided share of his interest in the joint family properties. There was no division among the joint family members at that time. Out of completion and practice of undue influence, the plaintiff was made to execute a gift deed in favour of the fifth defendant in respect of his undivided share of his interest in the joint family properties. There was no division among the joint family members at that time. With a view to deny the claim of defendants 8 to 10, this document was got executed by the plaintiff. The gift deed did not come into effect. The fifth defendant also did not get possession of the properties. It was a nominal and fraudulently obtained document and therefore it is not valid. The plaintiff’s father Chinnappa Mandiri, defendants 3, 4 and 6 and plaintiff’s mother Chinnammal, contrary to the rights of the plaintiff, had created documents. Without reference to the plaintiff, they had created a partition deed on 13.12.1968. It is wholly invalid and not binding the plaintiff. It did not come into effect. The plaintiff was also residing in the joint family house. For the past two years prior to the suit, defendants 1 to 7 were acting against the interests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked for division through panchayat. Defendants 1 to 7 did not agree and they had been delaying matters. In these circumstances, he has filed the suit. 3. Defendants 5 to 7 alone contested the suit and the other defendants remained ex parte. There was a division between the plaintiff and his father even in 1950 and on the basis of that division, they were in separate enjoyment and on 13.12.1968 it was given effect to and from 1968 parties have been in separate enjoyment. The plaintiff also accepted the partition and he was in enjoyment of the suit item and one half of suit item 8 and on 11.4.1956 the plaintiff executed the gift deed and gave the properties to the fifth defendant. Ever since, the fifth and the sixth defendants are in possession and enjoyment. From 11.4.1956 the plaintiff did not have any right or enjoyment in the suit properties. It is not true to say that the gift deed dated 11.4.1956 is a nominal document. It came into effect and it could not be cancelled. Defendants 5 to 7 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from 11.4.1956 and prescribed for title by adverse possession. It is not true to say that the gift deed dated 11.4.1956 is a nominal document. It came into effect and it could not be cancelled. Defendants 5 to 7 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from 11.4.1956 and prescribed for title by adverse possession. The plaintiff married the fifth defendant as per the custom in the community and defendants 6 and 7 were bore to them. It is false to say that the fifth defendant was only a concubine of the plaintiff. After 1956, the plaintiff had illicit relationship with the eighth defendant. He never married the eighth defendant. The eighth defendant is not the plaintiff’s wife. Defendants 9 and 10 were not born to them. The fifth defendant alone is the legitimate wife of the plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7 are the legitimate children. With a view to deprive the plaintiff of the suit properties at the instance of defendants 8 and 9, the suit has been filed. When the plaintiff and the ninth defendant attempted to commit trespass upon the suit property, the fifth defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.535 of 1979 and obtained injunction. Without seeking cancellation of the gift deed in favour of the fifth defendant, the suit is not maintainable. There is no cause of action. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit properties are not joint family properties. They are not in joint possession. The suit has not been properly valued for Court-fee and jurisdiction. 4. The tenth defendant filed a written statement contending (though it is shown that he remained ex parte) that he was entitled to a share in the suit properties. 5. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and documentary evidence, found as follows: The fifth defendant is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is estopped from disputing the validity of the gift deed, that the gift deed had come into effect and the fifth and the sixth defendants alone have been in possession and enjoyment and that they have prescribed for title by adverse possession. 6. However, on appeal by the plaintiff in A.S. No.22 of 1986, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur, reversed the decision of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for partition by judgment and decree dated 25.1.1990. 7. 6. However, on appeal by the plaintiff in A.S. No.22 of 1986, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur, reversed the decision of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for partition by judgment and decree dated 25.1.1990. 7. It is as against that, the present second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed for decision in the second appeal: "(1) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that Ex.A-6 is a nominal document is based on the evidence at all? (2) Whether on the facts found and proved before the Court below, the lower appellate Court overlooked the legal position that Ex.A-6 can be treated as a bona fide family arrangement between the parties? and (3) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in not even considering and giving a finding on the plea regarding prescriptive title by adverse possession?" 8. (2) Whether on the facts found and proved before the Court below, the lower appellate Court overlooked the legal position that Ex.A-6 can be treated as a bona fide family arrangement between the parties? and (3) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in not even considering and giving a finding on the plea regarding prescriptive title by adverse possession?" 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff had come to Court with a specific case that the fifth defendant is not his wife and defendants 6 and 7 are not even his children and the trial Court has given a specific finding that the fifth defendant is no other than the plaintiff’s uncle’s daughter and that his case that she is not his wife is absolutely false; the lower appellate Court failed to take note of the conduct of the plaintiff in going to any length of uttering falsehood and it ought to have considered the plea of nominality of Ex.A-6 in the light of the plea put forward by the plaintiff regarding his relationship with the fifth defendant; there is absolutely no motive suggested by the plaintiff to execute a nominal document in favour of the fifth defendant; the lower appellate Court erred in observing that because Ex.B-16 was later in point of time, Ex.A-6 could not be valid; it has failed to give adequate consideration to the fact that the father of the plaintiff had attested the settlement deed, which would show that it was a family arrangement brought about by the father of the plaintiff, who was the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his son, the plaintiff acting for his own branch, further, under Ex.B-16 partition deed between the plaintiff’s father and his brothers, the said arrangement under Ex.A-6 has been accepted and ratified by all the members of the joint family; Ex.B-16 must be taken as having ratified, Ex.A-6 as a family arrangement. The mere fact that the original was produced by the plaintiff, would not mean that it had not come into effect as admittedly the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 7 were living together as one family; even otherwise, Ex.A-6 must be taken to have been a bona fide settlement or arrangement for providing future maintenance for defendants 5 to 7, especially in view of the fact that the plaintiff was keeping the eight defendant as his concubine and two children, defendants 9 and 10 were born to him through her; the lower appellate Court has not given adequate consideration to the document produced by the fifth defendant to show that she was in possession and has prescribed for title by adverse possession. 9. This is a classic case where a person given to immoral ways, is trying to deprive his lawful heirs of their means of livelihood. The plaintiff, as found by the trial Court having married his cousin, the fifth defendant, and having executed a gift deed Ex.A-6 giving his properties to the fifth defendant, wants to go back on that and benefit his concubine, the eighth defendant and the children through his concubine. The lower appellate Court has merely gone on technicalities without adverting to the materials on record in the proper prospective. The lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration the contents of Ex.B-16, which would clearly show that there was an earlier partition and in that partition, the suit properties fell to the share of the plaintiff, who validly executed a document on 11.4.1956 under Ex.A-6 giving the properties to the fifth defendant, his wife. On the date Ex.B-16, came into existence, the plaintiff did not have any rights in the property and it was in the fitness of things that he did not joint as a party in that document. It is also to be noted that in the 1956 document, the plaintiff’s father had attested. It could be, even conceding without admitting that there was no prior partition, Ex.A-6 could be termed to be a family arrangement and under the family arrangement, the fifth defendant got the suit properties. If this position is reached, then the plaintiff having been a party to Ex.A-6 cannot maintain the suit without seeking cancellation of the document and for seeking consideration, the period of limitation expired long back. If this position is reached, then the plaintiff having been a party to Ex.A-6 cannot maintain the suit without seeking cancellation of the document and for seeking consideration, the period of limitation expired long back. The reasoning of the lower appellate Court that in Ex.B-16, Ex.A-6 had not been mentioned and that it would mean that it had not come into effect cannot at all be accepted. There are very many documents to show the possession of defendants 5 and 6 right from 1956. The implication of these documents has been completely lost sight of by the lower appellate Court. Not a single document has been produced on the side of the plaintiff to show his possession after the execution of Ex.A-6. It will be rank injustice if the fifth defendant is to be deprived of her rights in the suit properties. It has not been established by the plaintiff that Ex.A-6 is a nominal document. The finding by the lower appellate Court that it is a nominal document is not supported by any material. The lower appellate Court ought to have come to the conclusion that Ex.A-6 is to be treated as a bona fide family arrangement having regard to the wayward conduct of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also erred in not giving a finding on adverse possession. As already noted, the fifth defendant has been proved to be in possession and enjoyment right from 1956, the date of the gift deed. When the lower appellate Court has grossly misappreciated the evidence failed to draw proper inference from proved facts and apply the law in the proper perspective, this Court is entitled to interfere under Sec.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Accordingly, the second appeal will stand allowed. The judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs.