( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree in OS No. 27 of 1980 dated 6-11-1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Chodavaram by which the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking partition of Lot I of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment and delivery of one such share to him was decreed.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff laid the claim on the allegation that the suit properties were owned by late Isamsetty Pothu Naidu, his maternal grand-father. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant. The defendant being the sole issue, Poihu Naidu executed a settlement deed on 24-9-1976 in Ex. A1 conferring the suit properties with absolute rights on the plaintiff and after his (Pothu Naidu s) death, the defendant to have life interest. Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant viz. , the mother and son should enjoy the properties jointly. Pothu Naidu died in November, 1976 and thus the suit properties vested in him with absolute rights and he was enjoying the same along with the defendant. While so, the defendant, coming under the influence of one Boddu Kanakaiah, was contemplating to alienate the suit properties. The plaintiff demanded for partition to which the defendant was not agreeable. It was alleged that the properties described in Lot II of the plaint schedule were to be enjoyed by the donor along with the co-sharers, hence the relief of partition is restricted only to the properties mentioned in Lot I. Thus the suit for partition.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the settlement deed in Ex. A1 is not true and valid. She was deserted by her husband, who had taken a concubine, and, therefore, she had to live along with her son with her father, Pothu Naidu, during his life time. Before his death, Pothu Naidu developed defective vision, hardness of hearing and also was suffering from throat cancer. Therefore, he was being treated at Chodavaram and he sent for his son-in-law and advised him to change his habits and treat the defendant and the plaintiff with affection. Her husband, brother in law Jangu Naidu and one Lalam Pathrinaidu used to frequent her father and they persuaded him to execute a registered Will bequeathing the properties to herself and her son equally. On such representation, they took Pothu Naidu to Madugula and under the guise of execution of a registered Will deed, got executed the settlement deed by playing fraud on the old man. On coming to know of the said mischief played by them, Pothu Naidu issued a registered notice dated 2-10-1976 in Ex. B6 through his Counsel disowning the settlement deed and calling upon the plaintiff and the defendant to consent for the cancellation of the settlement deed. Therefore, both of them gave their consent by their reply dated 18-10-1976 in Ex. B7. Thereupon, her father cancelled the settlement deed by another registered document dated 6-11-1976 in Ex. B2. Her father died not in November 1976 but in January, 1977. Therefore, on his death, all the properties devolved on her as the exclusive and sole heir. It was alleged that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the suit was filed at the instance of the father of the plaintiff and his brother in law Jangu Naidu, at whose instance, the plaintiff left her protection. She further pleaded that the plaintiff being a minor and she herself being the guardian, the suit as has been filed and framed is not maintainable and thus prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed :" (1) Whether the settlement deed dated 24-9-1976 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation ? (2) Whether the cancellation of the said settlement deed by another deed dated 6-11-1976 is valid, true and binding on the plaintiff? (3) Whether the