Ramaprasada Rao, J.-These two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 114 of 1970 on his file. S. P. Veerabadra Chettiar, the common ancestor, died on 22nd February, 1951 leaving behind him, his wife, the second defendant and three daughters. Maragathammal, is his eldest daughter, who is not a party to this litigation married an advocate by name P. Rajappan. The first defendant P. Saraswathi Ammal married the brother of P. Rajappan and he is Dr. Punnaivanan . Rajappan was examined as D.W.7 in the case. The plaintiff Latchmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam is the third daughter. Veerabadra Chettiar’s wife Nagalakshmi Ammal, is the mother of the plaintiff, the first defendant and Maragathammal and is the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff came to Court to set aside the sale-deed Exhibit B-2 dated 29th June, 1964 executed by her mother (second defendant) and herself in respect of the suit properties which sale was in favour of her own, sister, the first defendant. Veerabadra Chettiar left a will Exhibit B-6 dated 22nd January, 1950. He left considerable properties. Under the said will, a life-estate was created in favour of the second defendant and a vested remainder was created in favour of his three daughters in equal moieties. The second defendant was also given the power to distribute the properties equally amongst her children. A family arrangement (which was styled as a partition deed) was entered into under Exhibit B-7, dated 27th February, 1952. In that partition, deed the second defendant retained for herself a life estate in all the immovable properties and acting as the mother and natural guardian of the first defendant, and the plaintiff, she partitioned the suit properties equally amongst her children. To this deed Maragathammal was also a party. There were no disputes between the mother and another daughter till about 1964 when it became necessary for the mother to perform the marriage of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that the two sons-in-law (the husband of Maragathammal and the husband of the first defendant) engrafted themselves in the family and were completely influencing the affairs of the family. The plaintiff would touch upon the bickerings in the family about the sharing of the properties and would allege that her mother always made out that she would have her marriage duly performed with the funds left by Veerabadra Chettiar without recourse to the properties which the plaintiff should ultimately take as the remainderman and she also made it open that in case she were to die before the marriage of the plaintiff, the elder sister will arrange to perform the marriage of the plaintiff with such funds. She would also vaguely allege that the 2nd defendant did not give out the existence of the will Exhibit B-6 and attacks the partition deed as an unfair transaction. Her specific case is that she was only five years old at the time of her father’s death, and therefore, she was completely under the influence of her mother and her sisters and her brothers-in-law. She would say that she was inexperienced and unaccustomed to the ways of the world and she was completely a tool in their hands and it was in. this atmosphere that she had to accept the brother of D.W. 7 as her husband. The marriage was performed on. 10th June, 1965. But on 29th June, 1964 her mother and her brothers-in-law dominated her, exercised undue influence and coerced her to be a party to a so-called sale-deed Exhibit B-2 dated 29th June, 1964, the contents of which and purport of which she could not understand till 1969, when she came to know that it was a pucca sale of one of her properties allotted to her in the partition deed Exhibit B-7 and that she was unjustly deprived to the same. She complains that Exhibit B-2 is a sham sale and that the properties which were worth more than Rs. 40,000 were sold for a sum of Rs. 10,030 and this ridiculous low price said to hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document