R. Mahadevan, J.

Defendants, who succeeded before the Trial Court but, failed in appeal, are the appellants in the second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that the plaintiffs/married daughters, the deceased Ganesan and 6th defendant are the children of the first defendant and her husband, the deceased Palaniappa Gounder. The second defendant is the wife of the said deceased Ganesan and the defendants 3 to 5 are their children. The first defendant and her husband, during the life time of the latter, purchased immovable properties jointly out of their joint earnings and by partition deed dated 23.07.1999, they have been allotted "A" schedule property and they were in joint possession and enjoyment till the death of the latter. Thereafter, the first defendant was enjoying her undivided half share of the suit property. During the life time of Palaniappa Gounder, he and his wife/first defendant partitioned orally substantial portion of their properties retaining the first item of the suit property in her possession and occupation and had become divided from their sons, second defendant and the deceased Ganesan. In the suit properties, the said Palaniappa Gounder, during his life time, had put up pucca two-storied terraced building on the northern portion and both the first defendant/wife and himself were residing therein separately. After the death of Palaniappa Gounder, in the year 1987, first defendant continued to reside in it, as her sons were living separately with their respective families. Palaniappa Gounder, with the consent and knowledge of the first defendant and while in sound state of disposing mind, executed a Will dated 26.06.1987 in favour of their daughters/plaintiffs half portion of the suit property on the north together with building, well and electrical connections etc., bequeathing the same to them. The first defendant stood as one of the attestors. On the death of their father, the Will came into force and the defendants have taken possession and have become joint and absolute owners of the same. Since the other half portion of the suit property was in occupation and possession of their mother and she was residing in the terraced building, the plaintiffs had not disturbed her occupation of the said building. As the plaintiffs had been looking after the first defendant/mother to her satisfaction and happiness, she executed a registered irrevocable gift deed, dated 09.05.2000, transferring her common half share on the south of the suit property to the plaintiffs, which is shown as Item-2. Hence, the plaintiffs have been in the absolute, continuous, exclusive, peaceful and actual physical possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property. Knowing the execution of gift deed, the defendants by undue influence, coercion, forced the first defendant to execute a document of transfer touching the suit property to the detriment of the plaintiffs. On 19.04.2001, when the agricultural coolie workers engaged by the plaintiffs were working in the suit property, the defendants 2 to 6 drove them out of the land, threatening with dire consequences. Hence, the present suit had been filed.

3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that the other defendants are helping this defendant in doing agricultural work in the suit property and when there arose misunderstanding between the defendants, this first defendant approached the plaintiffs and at that time, at the instigation of the plaintiffs, this defendant executed a registered document. After disposal of the suit filed by the defendants 2 to 5 against this defendant and the sixth defendant, in O.S. No. 661 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Salem, this defendant cancelled the registered document. Husband of the defendant had not executed any Will in favour of anybody. After the life time of this defendant and her husband, the defendants 2 to 6, viz., late Ganesan and Venkatesan, sons of this defendant are entitle