This second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.2003 in A.S.No.58 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2002 in O.S.No.470 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2.The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

The suit property along with another property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Kanagasabai under a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1951 from one Ramalinga Padayachi and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Kanagasabai died intestate leaving behind the first defendant and his three daughters/the plaintiffs as legal heirs. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are entitled to ¼ share each in the suit property. Since the first defendant was the eldest in the family and the plaintiffs were married and lived in their matrimonial house, patta for the suit property was transferred in the name of the first defendant. In respect of the other property found in the sale deed dated 03.06.1951, the plaintiffs and the first defendant have made amicable arrangements between themselves. The first defendant was in possession and cultivating in the suit property. The first defendant was affected with Paralysis for the last one year and was confined to her house. The second defendant is the husband of the third defendant. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 2 and 3 have entered into some arrangement with the first defendant using her physical condition and has entered into possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs issued a notice dated 14.03.1997 to the defendants 2 and 3 through their lawyer demanding possession of the suit property. But even though the defendants 2 and 3 acknowledged the receipt of the notice, neither they comply with the demand nor sent any reply. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of ¾ share of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died. Hence, they amended the plaint for directing the defendants 2 and 3 to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property from the date of plaint.

3.The gist and essence of written statement filed by the first defendant is as follows:

It is true that the first defendant was affected with Paralysis for the last one year and since, she was not able to talk or to walk, she was confined to her house. The second defendant helped the first defendant by giving money for her medical treatment. At that time, the second defendant using the physical condition of the first defendant, obtained Left Thumb Impression of the first defendant in the blank papers and has encroached upon the suit property. The first defendant has not given any right to enter upon the suit property and due to her health condition, she was not able to take action against the second defendant. The first defendant had ¼ share in the suit property and she has no objection for partition of the suit property.

4.The gist and essence of written statement filed by the second defendant, which is being adopted by the third defendant is as follows:

It is submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to deprive the valuable right of the second defendant, who is a cultivating tenant and the third defendant, who has purchased the suit property from the first defendant. The second defendant is the cultivating tenant for about 10 years. The third defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 01.07.1996 agreeing to purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.61/-per kuli and paid Rs.3,000/-as advance to the first defendant. Since the said Kanagasabai, husband of the first defendant, died in the year 1950, as per the Hindu Law, the plaintiff cannot be the legal heirs of he property left by the deceased Kanagasabai and hence, the first defendant is the fu