P.KALAIYARASAN, J.

This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2006 of the learned single Judge made in C.S.No.701 of 2003.

2. The appellant is the first defendant. The first respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs have already been on record as respondents 2 to 5.

3. The plaint averments are as follows :

(i) The first respondent/plaintiff Damodharan married Jayalakshmi and they got three sons and two daughters, who are defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff in his early days with great difficulties looked after the affairs of his entire family. He started his own business in 1962 by purchasing kerosene in open market and selling in retail by carrying the same in hand cart without any license. In the year 1973, the defendants 1 and 2 who had not shown any interest in their education were introduced in the plaintiff's business and they got license for selling kerosene. Thereafter, in the year 1980, the plaintiff started a provision store. The third defendant also joined with the plaintiff in his business of provision store in 1984. The plaintiff from his income purchased the suit property in 1980 for a valuable consideration from one K.R.Lakshmana Chettiar.

(ii) The plaintiff's wife passed away on 07.02.1990. During the life time of his wife, marriages for two sons were celebrated. Subsequently, the marriages of other children were performed by the plaintiff. The marital life of the third defendant was not happy and he divorced his first wife. The second marriage of the third defendant was also celebrated in 1996. After the death of his wife, the physical ailments of the plaintiff gets aggravated and his health deteriorated day by day. The first defendant was in a dominating position. The first defendant threatened the plaintiff and other members of the family, that it was dangerous to have the suit property in the plaintiff's name since the first wife of the third defendant may stake a claim. Believing the representation made by the first defendant, the plaintiff executed a Will, dated 22.10.1992, bequeathing the suit property in favour of the first defendant. In the beginning of the year 1996, the first defendant insisted the plaintiff to execute and register a settlement deed in his favour relating to the suit property. The plaintiff refused to execute the settlement deed as requested by the first defendant.

(iii) Immediately, the first defendant and his family members changed their colour and started ill treating, harassing, assaulting and abusing the plaintiff. This caused the plaintiff's physical ailments and mental distress aggravated and put him in mental depression, which led the plaintiff to become mentally degenerated and depressed and thereby the plaintiff was given treatment as an outpatient from the middle of the year 1996 till the end of the year 1999 in the Psychiatric clinic in the Government Royapettah Hospital and in the Psychiatric clinic in the Institute of Mental health. From the middle of the year 1996 till the end of the year 1999, the plaintiff, who was mentally unsound and was a puppet in the hands of the first defendant was not aware as to what happened and the plaintiff acted only according to the dictates of the first defendant. The first defendant and his family members were cordial till the end of the year 2001. The first son-in-law of the plaintiff, i.e., husband of the fourth defendant expired on 18.09.2001, which gave a great shock to the plaintiff. Although the fourth defendant managed to live in Salem with her three daughters who were in tender age for sometime till the middle of the year 2002, the fourth defendant could not manage further, approached the plaintiff and expressed her difficulties in bringing up her three daughters and sought financial assistance from her father, the plaintiff. The plaintiff who was not able to help her financially offered to provide a portion in the suit property, so that she can eke out