JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Appellant is defendant No. 1 in the suit out of which the appeal has arisen. Three sisters were plaintiffs in the suit. The suit properties originally belonged to Nanjammal @ Kuttiammal, mother of the three plaintiffs and father of defendant No. 1 who was brother of three plaintiffs. Father of defendant No. 1 pre-deceased his mother Nanjammal. The husband of Nanjammal, i.e., father of the plaintiffs and grandfather of defendant No. 1 also pre-deceased his wife. Nanjammal died on 11th September, 1979 at an old age.

2. According to the plaintiffs, their mother in sound disposing mind duly executed on 20th August, 1966 a registered will whereunder she bequeathed in their favour properties described in Schedule A to the plaint. Schedule B properties also belonged absolutely to Nanjammal which, according to the allegations in the plaint, were inherited to the extent of 3/4th share by the three plaintiffs together and 1/4th undivided share by defendant No. 1 according to law of succession Nanjammal having died intestate in respect of the said properties. After death of Nanjammal, the appellant began to assert his exclusive title to suit properties as a result whereof the plaintiffs sent a notice to him requiring him to restrain from unlawful interference in the enjoyment of the properties. In reply to the notice, the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs to Schedule A and B properties and asserted his exclusive title under two settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 alleged to have been executed in his favour by Nanjammal. The plaintiff on receipt of the reply notice obtained copies of the said deeds and then only became aware about the said deeds which, it was claimed, were not validly executed. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs who are respondents before us sought a declaration that plaint A Schedule properties belong exclusively to them and sought injunction restraining the appellant/first defendant from interfering and disturbing the plaintiffs exclusive possession and enjoyment of those properties through their tenant and further sought partition of Schedule B properties into 4 equal shares so as to allot three shares to the plaintiffs altogether and one share to defendant No. 1.

3. The trial court held that the settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 which were in the nature of gift deeds in favour of the first defendant were not valid documents and the said deeds were brought into existence by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The suit was, therefore, decreed.

4. The appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decreed of the trial court was, however, allowed by the Additional District Judge and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the suit was dismissed with costs in favour of the appellant both of the first appeal and also of the suit. It was held that Exhibits B-6 and B-7 were validly and voluntarily executed with full knowledge of contents thereof and with intention to gift the properties in favour of the appellant.

5. In the second appeal that was preferred by the plaintiffs, the High Court has held that the aforesaid deeds have not been proved and are void for all purposes. Resultantly, setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, the judgment and decree of the trial court has been restored. Under these circumstances, the original first defendant has preferred this appeal.

6. The High Court has come to the conclusion that Exhibits B-6 and B-7 are not valid documents for lack of evidence in proof thereof; absence of knowledge of Nanjammal in respect of contents of documents and doubts about the execution thereof, and, the burden being on the appellant to prove the validity of the documents which he has failed to discharge.

7. For reaching the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court has said that the expression attested is not defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Ac