The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.22 of 1998 on the file of Sub Judge, Hosur confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.37 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Court, Hosur.

2. The second defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. The respondents 1 to 6 are plaintiffs and the 7th respondent is the third defendant in the suit

3. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.37 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hosur for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

4. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:-

.(i) The suit properties originally belonged to one Dasappa. On 11. 1919, the said Dasappa gifted the suit property in favour of his wife Muniamma and his daughter Goopalli Muniamma under a registered gift deed. On 25. 1955, the said Muniamma gifted her half share also in favour of her daughter Goopalli Muniamma as she had no male issue under a registered gift deed. Thus, the said Goopalli Muniamma became the absolute owner of the suit properties. The said Goopalli Muniamma died in 1981 leaving behind her husband/first defendant, one son/second defendant and two daughters/3rd defendant and one Kamala. The said Kamala died prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs are Goopalli Muniammas husband and children. After the death of Goopalli Muniamma, her husband, one son and two daughters are equally entitled to the suit properties. The defendants and the deceased Kamala are equally entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Since the said Kamala died prior to the suit, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share of the Kamalas share. The 1st plaintiff along with the husband of Kamala and the sons and daughters of Kamala are claiming the share of Kamala, who is one of the daughters of the said Goopalli Muniamma.

.(ii) According to the plaintiffs, the partition deed dated 20.1.1981 was executed between the 2nd defendant, 2nd defendants father, who is the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendants mother namely, Goopalli Muniamma. The said sale deed cannot be construed as partition deed since the defendants 1 and 2 were not sharers of the properties belonging to Goopalli Muniamma. Even if the said dated is construed as gift deed as held by this court in its judgment dated 110. 1996 in second Appeal No.1291 of 1996, the said deed is not true and valid one. That the Goopalli Muniamma was aged more than 65 years when the said deed was executed and she was completely blind for more than five years before the execution of the said deed and she was also ill and bedridden and was not in a position to move about. Goopalli Muniamma was extremely weak both physically and mentally and was not able to recognize what she was doing. She was under the care and influence of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was exercising his influence on her. Goopalli Muniamma died just a week after the execution of the document. When the said deed was said to have been executed, the second defendant appears to have fraudulently obtained the said deed from Goopalli Muniamma. The first defendant was also extremely old and he was also extremely week both physically and mentally and he was also under the care and influence of the second defendant. According to the plaintiffs, it was only the second defendant, who is managing the affairs of the family and the first defendant was under the control of the second defendant. According to the plaintiffs, Goopalli Muniamma did not execute the said dated 20.1.1981 while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The sale deed dated 20.1.1981 was also not duly attested as per law. It is a fraudulent document created to defraud the plaintiffs and the third defendants legitimate share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs specifically denied the execution and the attestation of the said deed dated 20.1.1981. According to the plaintiffs, the document will not bind the plaintiffs and their shares in the suit prop