JUDGMENT : R. Tharani, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides. 2. This Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No. 1 of 2013, dated 12.4.2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 320 of 2007, dated 20.11.2012 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Appellant herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the Suit. The Appellant herein has filed a Suit in O.S. No. 320 of 2007 before the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli seeking for a prayer of declaration that the Sale Deeds, dated 24.9.2003 and 31.10.2003 respectively are null and void and for Permanent Injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit. Against the Judgment and Decree, the Appellant filed an Appeal in A.S. No.1 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Principal District Judge dismissed the Appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Against the Judgment and Decree, the Appellant has filed this present Second Appeal. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the wife of late R. Sundaram. They have five daughters and one son. The Plaintiff is filing the Suit for and on behalf of all the Legal Heirs of Sundaram. The Suit properties are the Self-acquired properties of Sundaram. The properties Items 1 to 3 in A Schedule properties were purchased by Sundaram and one Palaniappan. The properties were orally partition among Sundaram and his brother Palaniappan. Later Sundaram became the absolute Owner of the B Schedule property by way of registered Release Deed, dated 24.9.2003. Palaniappan died and subsequently Sundaram also died on 23.6.2007. The First Defendant claims right over the Suit properties alleging that he has purchased the properties from Sundaram and the Defendants 2 to 6, who are the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan. The Plaintiff, Palaniappan and their children were living together in A Schedule property by running a Bricks Chamber in the B Schedule property. After the death of Sundaram, the Plaintiff is running the Bricks business in the Suit property. On 24.9.2003, Sundaram informed the Plaintiff that he was going to the Registrar's Office to obtain a Release Deed from the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan in respect of B Schedule property. After the death of Sundaram, the Plaintiff is running the Bricks business in the Suit property. On 24.9.2003, Sundaram informed the Plaintiff that he was going to the Registrar's Office to obtain a Release Deed from the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan in respect of B Schedule property. The Defendants 2 to 6 obtained the signatures of Sundaram in the written Stamp Papers representing the same as Release Deed but actually obtained signatures in the Sale Deed in favour of the First Defendant. The sale was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. 5. The 7th Defendant is the brother of Mani, who is the husband of the First Defendant. The 7th Defendant is also a Partner in the business with Sundaram and he lent Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to Sundaram to meet out his urgent expenses and he asked Sundaram to execute a registered Mortgage Deed. Accordingly Sundaram went to the Registrar's office and signed the documents without knowing that it is a Sale Deed. Sundaram was cheated by the Defendants and the Sale Deeds are non est. The Sale Deeds were not acted upon and the Plaintiff and her children are in possession of the properties. Sundaram was carrying on business in the B Schedule for the past 15 years but in the Sale Deed the Brick Chamber was not mentioned and it is shown only as a Punja land. The Defendants 1 & 7 are attempting to interfere with the Plaintiffs possession over the Suit properties by trespassing. Hence, the Suit is filed for declarating that the Sale Deeds are null and void and non est and for Permanent Injunction against the Defendants 1 & 7. 6. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the Defendants 1 & 7 as adopted by the Defendants 2 to 5 are as follows: (i) It is false to state that the Suit properties are the self acquired properties of Sundaram and that Sundaram and his brother orally partitioned the properties among themselves. The allegations that the Defendants 2 to 6 obtained signatures from Sundaram representing that it is for registration of Mortgage Deed is not true. Sundaram and Palaniappan were doing Brick Kiln business and from out of the income they have jointly purchased properties in Kottampatti village. Subsequently they jointly purchased the B Schedule properties and tried to put up a Bricks Chamber. Sundaram and Palaniappan were doing Brick Kiln business and from out of the income they have jointly purchased properties in Kottampatti village. Subsequently they jointly purchased the B Schedule properties and tried to put up a Bricks Chamber. For putting up Bricks Chamber, they have sold the properties in Kottampatti village. Thereafter they jointly purchased A Schedule properties and other properties in their names. They have also purchased 20 acres of land in Adukkamputhurkombai village in their names and also in their wive' names. (ii) By getting Loans, Sundaram constructed a house near the B Schedule property. Thereafter misunderstandings arose between Sundaram and Palaniappan and they failed to maintain the Bricks Chamber and in due course the Chamber was destroyed. They have mortgaged the A & B Schedule properties with Sowdambika Finance, received loans and paid the debts. The original documents are with the Finance. The said Finance was liquidated and hence, the documents could not be received back from the Finance Company. The Creditors began to give pressure for return of the loan. In the meantime, Palaniappan died. (iii) There was a Panchayat in the village in which the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan refused to bear the debts obtained for construction of the house by Sundaram. It was decided in the Panchayat that Sundaram and his wife have to transfer the properties in Salem district in the name of the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan. Since Palaniappan borrowed Loan from Devarajan, it was decided that Sundaram and his wife on behalf of Palaniappan have to execute Sale Deed in favour of Devarajan and after repayment of Loan the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan could get back the property from Devarajan. It was also decided that the Legal Heirs have to give the 'B' Schedule properties to Sundaram. It is further decided that A Schedule properties and the nearby properties have to be sold and the Sale proceeds have to be given to the Creditors. Accordingly Sundaram and Defendants 2 & 6 sold the properties situated near the A Schedule properties to one Kamaraj and another Sale Deed in favour of the First Defendant in respect of A Schedule property and on the same day Defendants 2 to 6 executed a Release Deed in favour of Sundaram in respect of B Schedule property. The Plaintiff has not stated anything in her Plaint about the Sale executed in favour of Kamaraj. The Plaintiff has not stated anything in her Plaint about the Sale executed in favour of Kamaraj. Since the bricks chamber was destroyed it was not mentioned in the Release Deed and in the Sale Deed executed in favour of the First Defendant. After purchase the First Defendant executed a Lease Deed in favour of 7th Defendant's son Saravanan on 6.6.2005 in respect of B Schedule property and he constructed a Bricks Chamber and he is running the business. Even during the life time of Sundaram, Saravanan obtained electric connection and also put up a bore well and obtained separate electricity service connection. Sundaram has not raised any objection during his life time. (iv) There were titled sheds in A & B Schedule properties for the stay of the Employees in the brick kiln for which Electricity Service connection was obtained in the name of one Natesan. After the sale Sundaram requested for permission to stay in one of the sheds and hence, he was permitted to stay in the shed in A Schedule property. The Plaintiff and her children were working in the Brick Kiln run by the 7th Defendant's son by staying in the shed along with the other Employees. After the sale Sundaram was alive for further 3 years, but he has not raised any objections during his life time. The Suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action for the Suit. 7. On the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed: xxxxxxxxxx 8. Two Witnesses were examined as PWs. 1, 2 and 43 Documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A43 on the side of the Plaintiff and Three Witnesses were examined as DWs. 1 to 3 and 26 Documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B26 on the side of the Defendants. After considering the Oral and Documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit filed by the Plaintiff. Against which, the Appellant herein preferred an Appeal in A.S. No. 1 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. In the grounds of First Appeal, it is stated that the Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PW1 & PW2 in the proper perspective and that the possession of the property is only with the Plaintiff and that the Defendants have not pleaded Adverse Possession. In the grounds of First Appeal, it is stated that the Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PW1 & PW2 in the proper perspective and that the possession of the property is only with the Plaintiff and that the Defendants have not pleaded Adverse Possession. On the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed: (i) Whether the Sale Deed, dated 24.9.2003 executed in favour of First Defendant is not valid and non est? (ii) Whether the Sale Deed dated 31.10.2003 executed in respected of B Schedule is not valid and non est? (iii) Whether the Suit is barred by limitation? (iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Declarations as prayed for? (v) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction? (vi) To what relief the Plaintiff is entitled? 9. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Against which, the Appellant herein has preferred the present Second Appeal. 10. In the grounds of Second Appeal, it is stated that both the lower Courts discarded Exs. A1 to A43 which will establish the title and possession of the Appellant over the Suit properties. Both the Courts below failed to consider that if Exs. B1 & B2 were valid, the Appellant would not have been allowed to continue in possession. Both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3, which would categorically establish that the husband of the Appellant has gone to the Sub-Registrar Office only for the purpose of obtaining a Release Deed from the Respondents 2 to 6. The Courts below ignored the admissions made by PW1 and failed to see that Ex. B3 alleged Lease Deed did not prove the possession of the Respondents 1 & 7 and Ex. B3 is a fabricated document. The Courts below failed to consider that not praying for revocation of Sale Deed in the name of Kamaraj does not imply that the Appellant is not entitled for reliefs claimed in the Suit. The Courts below ought to have seen that the Appellant is entitled to maintain the Suit on behalf of her children also. 11. The Courts below failed to consider that not praying for revocation of Sale Deed in the name of Kamaraj does not imply that the Appellant is not entitled for reliefs claimed in the Suit. The Courts below ought to have seen that the Appellant is entitled to maintain the Suit on behalf of her children also. 11. This Court by its Order, dated 18.6.2019, has admitted the Second Appeal and has framed the following Substantial Question of Law, which are as follows: "Whether Courts below are correct in law in discarding Exs. A1 to A43 material documents, which would clearly establish the title and possession of the Appellant over the Suit properties?" Issue: 12. On the side of the Appellant, it is stated that both the lower Courts failed to consider the documents filed on the side of the Plaintiff. A perusal of the Trial Court Judgment reveals that the Trial Court failed to discuss the validity of the documents filed on the side of the Appellant. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that the documents filed on the side of the Appellant are prior to the Suit and hence, they are invalid. In Paragraph No. 29 of the Trial Court Judgment, it is stated that the Plaintiff side documents, Exs. A4, A5, A10, A20, A28, A32 were the documents prior to the filing of the Suit and other documents are after the filing of the Suit and without assigning any reason as to the inadmissibility of those documents, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is in permissible possession. 13. The Judgment of the First Appellate Court is almost a replica of the Trial Court Judgment. In Paragraph No. 15 of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is observed that Exs. A4, A5, A10, A20, A28 were documents prior to the filing to the Suit. Without any discussion regarding the admissibility of those documents, the First Appellate Court also has came to the conclusion that the Appellant is in permissible possession. 14. Both the lower Courts have decided that the Appellant is in permissible possession but they gave findings that the possession remains with the First Defendant. The only reason for this findings given by both the lower Courts is that the Suit property was vacant and as per Exs. B1 & B2, the possession follows title. 14. Both the lower Courts have decided that the Appellant is in permissible possession but they gave findings that the possession remains with the First Defendant. The only reason for this findings given by both the lower Courts is that the Suit property was vacant and as per Exs. B1 & B2, the possession follows title. When possession of the Appellant is admitted by the Defendant and when the possession is evidenced through the documents filed on the side of the Appellant and when the case of the Defendant is that the 7th Defendant is miming a Brick Chamber in the same property, both the lower Court came to a conclusion that the property was vacant. 15. Since both the lower Courts failed to consider the documents of the Plaintiff, the question to be decided is a mixed question of law and facts. Hence, facts are to be discussed in this issue. Sundaram and one Palaniappan are brothers. Admittedly some of the properties were purchased in the name of Sundaram and Palaniappan both jointly and separately and some properties were purchased in the name of their wife. The Defendants 2 to 6 are the Legal Heirs of the deceased Palaniappan. The Plaintiff is the widow of Sundaram. 16. The case of the Plaintiff is that in the guise of getting a Release Deed from the Defendants 2 to 6, Sundaram was made to sign in the disputed Sale Deeds. It is stated that Palaniappan and Sundaram were doing Brick Kiln business and out of the income from the business, Palaniappan and Sundaram put up a Brick Chamber in the B Schedule property in the year 1985. They sold out their property in Koorampatti village and from that sale amount and out of the earning from the bricks chamber and from getting loan from Third parties, they purchased the A Schedule properties and nearby properties and they also purchased some properties in Adukkamputhurkombai village both in their names and in the name of their wives. The Sale Deeds in the name of Sundaram and Palaniappan were marked as Exs. A40 to A42. By obtaining Loan from the outsiders, Sundaram purchased 10 cents near B Schedule property and he constructed a big house. 17. The case of the Appellant is that while Palaniappan and Sundaram were running joint business. Sundaram obtained a Loan of Rs. The Sale Deeds in the name of Sundaram and Palaniappan were marked as Exs. A40 to A42. By obtaining Loan from the outsiders, Sundaram purchased 10 cents near B Schedule property and he constructed a big house. 17. The case of the Appellant is that while Palaniappan and Sundaram were running joint business. Sundaram obtained a Loan of Rs. 75,000 from the 7th Defendant and in the guise of a Mortgage Deed, the 7th Defendant obtained the signature of Sundaram in the Sale Deed, Ex. A39. The Release Deed executed by Defendants 2 to 6 in favour of Sundaram was marked as Ex. A2. It is stated that in the guise of executing the Release Deed the Defendants fraudulently executed a Sale Deed in favour of the First Respondent, which is marked as Ex. A1. 18. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that the 7th Defendant purchased the property and he was a bona fide purchaser. The originals of Exs. A1 & A39 were marked as Exs. Bl & B2. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that after the execution of Ex. B2, the First Defendant executed Ex. B3, Lease Deed, dated 6.6.2005 in respect of A & B Schedule properties in favour of one Saravanan, who is the son of the 7th Defendant and Saravanan took steps to erect a Bricks Chamber in the property. Ex. B20 is the Patta Passbook in the name of the First Defendant and Exs. B21 & B22 were adangal extracts. Exs. B5 to B7, Electricity Meter Cards in the name of First Defendant and Saravanan. On 6.7.2005, Saravanan obtained Ex. B8, the Certificate of registration from Sales Tax Department. Ex. B9 is the Certificate of Registration from the Commercial Tax Department for running business in the name of Vinayaga Bricks Industries. Exs. B10 & B11 are the receipt for Electricity charges and House Tax Receipt in the name of the First Defendant. Exs. B12 & B13 were Tax Receipts in the name of Saravanan. Exs. B14 to B19 are the documents regarding the plan approval. 19. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that after the execution of Sale Deed, Sundaram was alive for about 4 years, and he was present in the Suit property itself. Exs. B12 & B13 were Tax Receipts in the name of Saravanan. Exs. B14 to B19 are the documents regarding the plan approval. 19. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that after the execution of Sale Deed, Sundaram was alive for about 4 years, and he was present in the Suit property itself. He must be aware of the Patta transfer, change of electricity connection and the steps taken by Sundaram for installing Brick Chamber but he did not take any steps during his life time and that the Suit is barred by limitation. 20. The contention of the Appellant is that only after the death of her husband, she came to know about Sale Deed, hence, the limitation starts from the date of knowledge and the Suit is within the limitation period. 21. On the side of the Appellant, it is stated that Telephone Bills, Tax Receipts, Cash Bills, invoice for purchase of Coal from Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Adangal Extracts were marked as Exs. A4 to A26. Ex. A27 is the Residential Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer. The Commercial Tax Assessment Order and Payment Receipts were marked as Exs. A28 to A33. It is stated that the Appellant is in possession and she is not aware of Exs. A1 & A39 until the death of her husband. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bindu Sharma v. Ram Prakash Sharma and other, AIR 1997 All. 429 , which reads as follows: "Finding as to limitation -- Court not framed issue on point of limitation -- Finding as to, recorded straightway without calling upon parties to lead evidence on any such specific issue -- Cannot be sustained." 22. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kaniz Fatima (Deceased) and another v. Shah Nairn Ashra, AIR 1983 All. 450 , which reads as follows: "Opportunity of adducing evidence in support of it or in rebuttal of it. It cannot be assumed trial the parties have exhaustively led evidence on all the pleas raised in the pleadings. A party is supposed to lead evidence only on the issues framed in the Suit. 450 , which reads as follows: "Opportunity of adducing evidence in support of it or in rebuttal of it. It cannot be assumed trial the parties have exhaustively led evidence on all the pleas raised in the pleadings. A party is supposed to lead evidence only on the issues framed in the Suit. The other party can object and the Court can always refuse to record evidence which does not relate to the issues framed in the Suit. Even if evidence has been led and brought on record, the Court will not be justified to look into that evidence for deciding a point not covered by the issues. Thus, it cannot be said that it the parties had led evidence in the case it should be construed to cover all the pleas raised in the pleadings although no issue has been framed on that point." 23. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by the Orissa High Court in the case of Bivas Chandra Samanta v. Hira @ Mohan Biswal and others, AIR 2006 Ori. 1 , which reads as follows: "Suit to declare Sale Deed as invalid -- Limitation -- Sale Deed in question was executed by Defendant in the year 1987 -- Plaintiff had no knowledge about same prior to 15th April 1993 -- Though issue was framed with regard to limitation, it was not pressed and no evidence was led by parties -- Statement made on issue in Plaint which was not controverted will have to be therefore accepted -- Suit filed in the year 1993 being within 3 years from date of knowledge is, therefore, not barred by limitation." 24. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that Ex. A33-Circular from' the Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax, Thuraiyur reveals that Sundaram had renewed the Certificate, for Venkateswara Brick Industries upto 31.3.2006 and latter it was cancelled and after that the Licence was not renewed since Sundaram sold the property. Though Sundaram was alive till 22.6.2007, he has not taken any steps to renew the same. Sundaram took steps to install Brick Chamber in the year 2005 onwards. On 24.9.2003, Ex. B24-Sale Deed was executed in favour of Kamaraj. The Plaintiff has not taken any steps to cancel the Sale Deed. The possession of the Appellant is admitted by the Respondents. Sundaram took steps to install Brick Chamber in the year 2005 onwards. On 24.9.2003, Ex. B24-Sale Deed was executed in favour of Kamaraj. The Plaintiff has not taken any steps to cancel the Sale Deed. The possession of the Appellant is admitted by the Respondents. There were documents to prove that Venkateswara Brick Chamber was functioning in the Suit property even after the Sale Deed, hence, the contention of the Appellant that the Appellant is not aware of the execution of the Sale Deeds till the death of her husband is acceptable. 25. On the side of the Appellant, it is stated that the Defendants cannot claim adverse possession. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of S. Nirmala v. Kanniammal and others, 2017 (1) CTC 24 : 2017 (1) MWN (Civil) 666, which reads as follows: "Person claiming Adverse Possession should specifically plead as to when possession became adverse to true Owner and nature of overt act exercised by such person against true Owner." 26. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that the Appellant failed to implead the other Legal Heirs of Sundaram and that the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the side of the Appellant, it is stated that in case of non-joinder of necessary parties, the First Appellate Court should have remanded the matter. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Bala Ram v. Murli Chand and others, AIR 2016 HP 203 , which reads as follows: "Suit for Declaration and Possession -- Dismissal on ground that Suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties -- said issue not being framed, dismissal of Suit was without affording opportunity to Plaintiff to move application for impleading necessary parties -- In circumstance, order remanding Suit to subordinate Court for fresh decision, proper." 27. On the side of the Appellant, it is stated that the Release Deed and the Sale Deed were executed on the same day on 24.9.2003 and they illustrate that illiterate Sundaram had signed the Sale Deed under the impression that it was the Release Deed in his favour. On the side of the Appellant, it is stated that the Release Deed and the Sale Deed were executed on the same day on 24.9.2003 and they illustrate that illiterate Sundaram had signed the Sale Deed under the impression that it was the Release Deed in his favour. It is further stated that Sundaram signed the Sale Deed, dated 24.9.2003 under the impression that he was executing a Mortgage Deed in favour of the Seventh Defendant and both the Sale Deeds are invalid. 28. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied' on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chitra and three others v. Elasi Ammal and Eighteen others, 2018 (2) CTC 52 , which reads as follows: "After commencement of trial, Plaintiffs seeking amendment to declare Release Deed executed by their father and Partition Deed entered into between Defendants as null and void and to include one more property..........Plaintiffs have given acceptable reason to include relief of Declaration in Suit for Partition, any property left out, can be included at any stage either at the instance of Plaintiff or defendant - Civil Revision Petition allowed." 29. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Amar Krishna Mukherjee v. Asha Rani Gosh and other, AIR 1985 Cal. 398 , which reads as follows: "Sale Deed relating to House property -- Execution of, by Owner in belief that the was executing Mortgage Deed -- Misrepresentation that Vendee would execute Agreement to reconvey simultaneously -- Plea of non est factum applies -- Deed is bad and liable to be cancelled." 30. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kaniz Minor Palani Velu and 2 others v. Sadasiva Padayachi (died) and 7 others, 2000 (2) CTC 486, which reads as follows: "Principles of non est factum -- Principles relating to non est factum is applicable to illiterate women also -- Person pleading non est factum should not only prove that he is illiterate person and should also prove that circumstances indicate positively that he was made to believe that nature and contents of documents were different from one that was actually executed." 31. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of R. Sarala v. Chandrasekar and others, 2012 (5) CTC 268 , which reads as follows: "Held, girl of that age might not have been placed under capacity to understand purpose and importance of document -- Release Deed thus, non-est in eyes of law and void ab initio." 32. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment passed by the Rajasthan Court in the case of Virendran Singh and others v. Kashiyam (deceased by L.Rs.), AIR 2004 Raj. 196 , which reads as follows: "Execution of with free mind/fraud -- Inference of -- Donee -- Defendant in position to dominate will of Plaintiff-Donor -- Gift Deed executed as result of undue influence and fraud exercised by donee upon Donor -- Cancellation of proper." 33. Both the lower Courts are wrong in refusing to consider the Plaintiff side documents on the ground that they are prior to the Suit. The document prior to the Suit are to be considered for deciding the matter in issue. Exs. A3, A4 were of the year 2007. The Tax Receipts in the name of Sundaram were marked as Exs. AS & A6. Exs. A7 to A12 are the Documents-for purchase of Coal from Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The documents Exs. A6 to A11 are prior to the Suit. It is seen that even in the year 2001, Venkateswara Brick Chamber was there and Coal was purchased for Venkateswara Brick Chamber. From Exs. B19 to B24, it is seen that even after the execution of the Sale Deed in the year 2003, possession was with Sundaram and the Plaintiff. Exs. B12 to B18 are the Receipts issued by the Tiruchirappalli Corporation in the name of Venkateswara Brick Chamber. The property could not be a vacant land at the time of execution of the Sale Deeds. When the possession of Plaintiff is admitted by the Defendants, both the lower Courts have come to a wrong conclusion that the possession follows title presuming that the property is a vacant land without considering Exs. B12 to B18. 34. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the Sale Deeds, Exs. A1 & A39 are admissible on the basis that in both the documents, the properties sold by Sundaram through the other document was mentioned in the boundary recitals. B12 to B18. 34. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the Sale Deeds, Exs. A1 & A39 are admissible on the basis that in both the documents, the properties sold by Sundaram through the other document was mentioned in the boundary recitals. It is stated that the boundary in Ex. B24 is co-relating with the Boundaries mentioned in Ex. B1 & B2. Mere mentioning of one of the transaction in the Boundary recital, cannot validate the other document. 35. Ex. A2 is the Release Deed executed by the Defendants 2 to 6 in favour of Sundaram. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that Sundaram sold the property, he received through Ex. A2 in favour of the 7th Defendant under Ex. A39. The contention of the Appellant is that under the impression of putting his signature in the Release Deed, Sundaram has signed Ex. A1. It is stated that Sundaram is an illiterate person. 36. In the Written Statement, it is stated that to set right the Loans, there was a Panchayat in the village in which the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan refused to bear the debts obtained for construction of the house by Sundaram and that it was decided in the Panchayat that Sundaram and his wife have to transfer the properties in Salem district in the name of the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan. Since Palaniappan borrowed loan from Devarajan, it was decided that Sundaram and his wife on behalf of Palaniappan have to execute Sale Deed in favour of Devarajan and after repayment of Loan the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan can receive back the property from Devarajan. 37. It is further stated that Palaniappan also got some Loan from one Devarajan what is the necessity for Sundaram to execute a Sale Deed for Devarajan to settle the Loan of Palaniappan why instead of Sundaram the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan were given the right to purchase the property back from Devarajan is not explained by the Defendants. 38. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that in the Panchayat, it was also decided that the Legal Heirs of Palaniappan have to give the B Schedule properties to Sundaram and that it is further decided that A Schedule properties and the nearby properties have to be sold and the Sale proceeds have to be given to the Creditors. Accordingly Sundaram and the Defendants 2 & 6 sold the properties situated near the A Schedule properties to one Kamaraj and they executed another Sale Deed in favour of the First Defendant in respect of A Schedule property and on the same day Defendants 2 to 6 executed a Release Deed in favour of Sundaram in respect of B Schedule property. 39. When there was a decision to sell property to the First Defendant what is the necessity for the Defendants 2 to 6 to execute a Release Deed in favour of Sundaram when they all can jointly execute a Sale Deed. This fact also is not explained by the Respondents. 40. It is stated that Sundaram borrowed some Loan for constructing a big house but the case of the Appellant is that the Plaintiff and her family are permitted to reside in a small titled shed and that they are working in the Brick Chamber for Wages. 41. On the side of the Respondents, it is stated that after purchase the First Defendant executed a Lease Deed in favour of 7th Defendant's son Saravanan on 6.6.2005 in respect of B Schedule property and he constructed a Bricks Chamber and he is running the business and that even during the life time of Sundaram he obtained Electric connection and also erected Bore well and obtained separate Electricity Service connection and that Sundaram has not raised any objection during his life time. 42. There is possibility for Sundaram not to have objected the activities of the First Respondent since he was under the impression that he has Mortgaged the property to the First Defendant. These doubts are not clearly discussed in the Judgments of the lower Court. 43. In the Written Statement, it is stated that since the Bricks Chamber was destroyed it was not mentioned in the Release Deed and in the Sale Deed executed in favour of the First Defendant. It is further stated that Sundaram sold the property to one Sivaraman and the Plaintiff requested the Defendants, for permission to reside in the sheds in the A Schedule property and the Plaintiff and her children were working in Brick Chamber. Though in the Written Statement, the Defendants has taken a stand that there was no Brick Chamber at the time of execution of Exs. Though in the Written Statement, the Defendants has taken a stand that there was no Brick Chamber at the time of execution of Exs. A1 & A39, all the documents of the Appellants clearly reveals that Venkateswara Brick Chamber was functioning at that time. The Respondents admit the possession of the Appellant. Records are marked to prove that even after the alleged sale, Venkateswara Brick Chamber was functioning. 44. Both the lower Courts brushed aside the documents of the Plaintiff as they are prior to Suit and failed to consider or discuss the validity of those documents. In the above circumstances, the Judgments and Decrees passed in the lower Courts are not proper. There is something fishy in the case of the Respondents. This questions of facts can be decided only by the lower Courts and not at the stage of Second Appeal. 45. In the above circumstances, an opportunity for the Plaintiff to put forth her case in a proper manner on the same cause of action is to be given without any question as to the limitation. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No. 1 of 2013, dated 12.4.2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 320 of 2007, dated 20.11.2012 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli is set aside and the Second Appeal is disposed of with liberty to the Appellant to file a fresh Suit on the same cause of action within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. No Costs.