The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a proper adjudication of whether a document is vitiated by undue influence or fraud, the correct interpretation of a partition deed or family arrangement, and the consideration of relevant legal provisions such as S.11 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.4 of the Partition Act.

K.S. Paripoornan, J.

1. Plaintiff in O.S. 46 of 1973 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Badagara are the appellants herein. Defendants in the above suit are the respondents. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' share in the B schedule properties with future profits. Plaint B Schedule consists of three items. Item 1 is a residential building. Item No. 2 is a compound about 22 cents in extent wherein the residential building is situate. Item No. 3 is a nilam about 40 cents in extent. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and deceased Chathu Kurup are the children of one Kalyani Amma. The Ist defendant is the widow of Chathu Kurup and defendants 2 to 5 are their children. Kalyani Amma, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Chathu Kurup are members of the Thavazhi. They belong to Moniyarathu Tarwad. There was a partition in the tarwad evidenced by Ext. A1 dated 11-4-1965. It is labelled as a "partition deed". Plaint B schedule items 2 and 3 (compound and nilam) were allotted to the share of Kalyani Amma and B Schedule item No. I building was allotted jointly to Kalyani Amma and her children-plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Chathu Kurup. Ext. A1 contained certain conditions and directions regarding the allotments so made. It was stated in Ext. A1 that the building was left in common to these persons. It is common ground that Kalyani Amma died in 1973. Chathu Kurup died in the year 1969(?). Defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Chathu Kurup. Supplemental 5th defendant was impleaded since the other defendants contended that 7 1/2 cents of land in item No. 2 was orally assigned by deceased Chathu Kurup to the 8th defendant, and in pursuance there to the 8th defendant is in possession. The plaintiffs allege that this is incorrect. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that after the demise of Kalyani Amma, plaintiffs came to know about a gift deed dated 21-7-1969 (Ext. B1) alleged to have been executed by deceased Kalyani Amma. By the said deed, Kalyani Amma gifted her entire property obtained as per Ext. A1 to Chathu Kurup, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs attack Ext. B1 as invalid and not binding on them. It is alleged that deceased Kalyani Amma did not execute the document and even so it was brought about by fraud, undue influence and coercion. Deceased Kalyani Amma was about 90 years old at the time of the document (Ext. B1) and deceased Chathu Kurup was residing with her and looking after her. Chathu Kurup took advantage of the situations and brought about the deed. The said gift deed Ext. B1 is against the terms of Ext. A1 partition deed and so. to the extent it militates against Ext. A1 it is invalid." In view of the infirmity attached to Ext. B1, all the three items of plaint. B schedule properties are liable to be partitioned, ignoring both Ext. B1 and the oral assignment alleged to have been given in favour of the 8th defendant. On these premises, the plaintiffs laid the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the plaint B schedule properties with future profits. The defendants contested the suit on many grounds. It is the defence case, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and that the plaint B schedule properties were gifted by deceased Kalyani Amma in favour of deceased Chathu Kurup by Ext. B1 dated 21-7-1969. The defendants also pleaded that deceased Chathu Kurup executed Ext. B2 will dated 27-10-1972 with respect to all his properties, including the plaint B schedule items in favour of defendants 2 to 4 and they are in possession accordingly. It is urged that Chathu Kurup died on 13th Dhanu 1148 and Kalyani Amma died on 1st Karkatakam 1148. It is the defence case that the plaintiffs have no right over items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule and they are only entitled to 2/4 shares over item 1 (building) as per Ext. A1 partition. The plaint allegations that the gift deed was brought about by fraud, coercion and undue influence, were denied. Deceased Kalyani Amma