- (1.) These two second appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.Nos.201 and 202 of 2003 dated 29.10.2004, in and by which, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore holding specifically that the Vardhamanam receipts Exs.B1 to B11 are not genuine and valid one and thereby it also held that M.Krishnakumar, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1531 of 1993 is not entitled for any relief of permanent injunction in respect of A.S.No.202 of 2003 and consequently it further held that the plaintiffs B.R.Sundaram and three others in O.S.No.2633/1996 are entitled to the relief of rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the defendant Krishnakumar as prayed for.
(2.) In respect of A.S.No.202/2003, for the reasons mentioned in the judgment and decree in A.S.No.201/2003, the appeal filed by Sundaram and others in A.S.No.202/2003 was allowed without costs.
(3.) This Court, at the time of admitting the second appeals, framed the following substantial questions of laws:- "1) When the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2633 of 1996 themselves having given a go-bye to the reasons given for execution of Vardhaman letters made by them in their original pleadings and admitted preparation and signing of Vardhaman letters, still is the learned District Judge right in reversing the decree of the trial Court 2) When the plaintiffs having admitted receipt of entire consideration with reference to the properties for which power of attorney was executed, whether the suit as framed is maintainable -;