A sale deed executed by a person who is not under undue influence and who is aware of the nature of the transaction is valid.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- These two appeals arise out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O. S. No. 114 of 1970 on his file. S. P. Veerbadra Chettiar, the common ancestor, died on 22-2-1951 leaving behind him. his wife, the second defendant and three daughters. Maragathammal, is his eldest daughter, who is not a party to this litigation, who married an advocate by name P. Rajappan. The first defendant P. Saraswathi Ammal married the brother of P. Rajappan and he is Dr. Punnaivanam, 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 Ex. B-2 dated 29-6-1964 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 Ex. B-6 dated 22-1-1950. 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 Ex. B-7 dated 27-2-1952. 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 her daughters 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 existence of the will Ex. 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 10-6-1965. But on 29-6-1964 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 Ex. B-2 dated 29-6-1964, 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 Ex. B-7 and that she was unjustly deprived of the same. She complains that Ex. 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. 10,000/- and this ridiculous low price said to have been paid as consideration by the first defendant for the purch