Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiffs suit is for the possession of her husbands property and for a declaration that a gift deed and a settlement deed executed by him in favour of defendants 1 and 2 were invalid as they were executed under undue influence. The District Munsif granted a decree to the plaintiff in respect of Ex. IV, the gift deed, and dismissed the suit as regards the settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal agreeing with the District Munsif that Ex. IV was executed under undue influence. The defendants have preferred this second appeal.

2. Mr. T.V. Venkatrama Aiyar for the appellants contends that there is no evidence of undue influence in the case and the Lower Courts were wrong in recording a finding on the point without evidence.

3. Mr. Subramania Aiyar on the other hand contends that the question of undue influence is one of fact and both the Courts having found that there was undue influence when Ex. IV was executed it is not open to this Court to go behind the finding. No doubt the question, whether there was undue influence or not and whether