( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 42 of 1974 on the file of the learned Subordinate judge, Rajahmundry preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 15-7-1983 dismissing the suit.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as under: Originally Eranki Sreeramamurthy (the deceased first plaintiff) filed the suit against his second son the first defendant and his grand-sons defendants 2 to 5 with the following averments. The first plaintiff belongs to Jegurupadu village. The first plaintiff and his sons possessed of Acs. 100-00 of wet land and Acs. 50-00 of dry land. In order to -discharge the joint family debts, some of the properties were sold. In 1953 the remaining properties were partitioned between the first plaintiff and his sons. Since then the first plaintiff and his sons were in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Ever since the partition, the first defendant is constantly requesting the first plaintiff to give a share to him in the personal property of the first plaintiff, which he got from his mother, to which the first plaintiff did not agree. The first defendant created differences between the first plaintiff and his wife, the result of which is that the wife left the first plaintiff in his old age of 82 years. The first plaintiff has become weak both in body and mind. Therefore the first plaintiff had to depend on one of his sons. The first defendant represented to the first plaintiff that in his (the first plaintiffs) interest, it is better to execute some documents such as General Power of attorney, etc. The first defendant took the signatures of the first plaintiff on some documents and also on some blank papers. The first plaintiff was not in a position to understand what those documents are. Later on the first plaintiff came to know that the first defendant got a settlement deed dated 25-8-1973 (Ex. A-8 or B-12) registered, which was signed by the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff also came to know that his signatures were taken on some false declarations to the extent of his lands and the same were filed to get over the legal prohibition against the execution and registration of the above said settlement deed. Therefore the settlement deed Ex. A-8 is null and void under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 Act )- The first defendant kept the first plaintiff with him till 13-2-1974. Being satisfied that a decent interval has elapsed, the first defendant informed the first plaintiff that he (the first plaintiff) executed a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant and his sons; and since the first plaintiff has no other property, the first plaintiff cannot expect to befed by the first defendant and asked the first plaintiff to get out of his house. Even during the stay of the first plaintiff with the first defendant, the first defendant did not allow the first plaintif to move alone, putting the first plaintiff under fear that if the first plaintiff goes out of the house alone, he will be beaten by the other sons. Being driven out of the house of the first defendant, the first plaintiff left Jegurupadu village and went to Secunderabad. In Secunderabad, the first plaintiff found a notice Ex. A-4 published in samacharam daily dated 24-2-1974 regarding the sale agreement, said to have been executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. Then only the first plaintiff came to know that his signatures, obtained by the first defendant on blank papers, might have been utilised for forging the said agreement of sale. The first plaintiff also came to know that a settlement deed Ex. A-8 was managed to be executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and his sons, conferring on them the remainder interest in respect of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the first plaintiff got issued a notice Ex. A-5 to the first defendant.