The defendants are the appellants. One Arumugha Asari, owner of the suit property, donated it to Kama-lakshi Animal, his sister-in-law who is also the mother-in-law of the plaintiff under Exhibit A-1 on 22-4-1970. He revoked that deed under Exhibit B-1 on 24-8-1973; On the same day he executed another deed of donation under Exhibit A-3, in favour of defendants. The defendants have taken possession of the suit property. The plaintiff, in whose favour Kamalakshi Animal has executed the gift deed, has filed the suit on the ground that the deed of donation dated 24-8-1973 under Exhibit A-3 is null and void and that it was obtained by coercion and for recovery of posses-sion of that portion of the property occupied by the defendant.

2. The first defendant in her answer stated that Exhibit A-3 was not obtained by coercion or under undue influence, but was executed voluntarily by the donor, that Arumugham Asari donated the property in favour of Kamalakshi in the hope that she will maintain him, but as she has failed to maintain him he has cancelled the deed.

3. The trial court found that Exhibit A-3 was not executed under coercion, but however decreed the suit of the plaintiff o