Mr. R. Subramanian, J.

The appeal in A.S. No.194 of 2001 was filed by the 2nd plaintiff Saradha V.Ram. She having died pending appeal, 3rd respondent/3rd defendant has been transposed as 2nd appellant in this appeal. The said suit was filed for declaration that the deceased 1st plaintiff M.V. Krishnappa was the absolute owner of the suit properties, that the 1st defendant has no right over the suit properties, that the sale deed dated 14.02.1974 in favour of the 1st defendant is sham and nominal document and for the consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and other reliefs. The genealogy showing the relationship of the parties is as follows:

The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.1190 of 1987 is as follows:

2. The mother of the plaintiff and the mother of the 1st defendant are sisters. 1st defendant remained unmarried. The plaintiff and his sister namely, Saradha V.Ram are only close relations of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff owned certain immovable properties at Madurai and he was also a Chief Artist in a Drama Group. The 1st defendant was residing at Coimbatore. The plaintiff used to visit the 1st defendant frequently. The plaintiff had due to his age had given up acting and was confined to his house because of his indifferent health and poor sight. He had lent some monies to his friends for interest and out of the said interest he maintained himself.

3. During 1971-72, the 1st defendant met the plaintiff at his residence and suggested that he could join her at Coimbatore instead of living alone at Madurai. She also suggested the plaintiff to sell his immovable property at Madurai and invest it in some immovable properties at Coimbatore. The 1st defendant was at that time employed as a teacher in a school run by Coimbatore Municipality. She had disclosed the fact that she had applied for allotment of a site in NGGO Colony being formed for the purposes of providing houses to non-gazetted government employees. Though she was allotted a site, she did not complete the process due to lack of funds. Since the plaintiff was willing purchase the site, the 1st defendant filed an application for the purchase of a site, in her capacity as a teacher in the Coimbatore Municipality.

4. The plaintiff thought that if he shifted his residence to Coimbatore, he would also have the company of the 1st defendant, who was living with her aged mother, who would also get benefited by the presence of the plaintiff. Therefore, he sold his property at Madurai aid collected all his cash resources and shifted his residence to Coimbatore. The site was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant in the year 1974. The first defendant handed over the possession of the site to the plaintiff and he had started construction of a residential house therein. The plaintiff had sold his house property at Madurai during the year 1972 and has spent the entire sale proceeds for constructing the house at Coimbatore in a portion of the land allotted to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has also occupied the house after completion of construction works. The 1st defendant never claimed ownership over the property.

5. A few portions of the property was let out to various tenants and the plaintiff was receiving the rental income. One Damodarasamy who was a tenant under the plaintiff had committed default in payment of rent and the plaintiff was thus forced to seek his eviction. However, Damodarasami was evicted from the building at the instance of friends and well wishers of the plaintiff. Hence the said Damodarasamy became enimical and hatched up a evil plan against the plaintiff. The said Damodarasamy along with one Balasundaram poisoned the mind of the 1st defendant. They were aided by the fact that the value of immovable property had gone up. Sensing the mood of the 1st defendant the plaintiff had demanded the 1st defendant to transfer the land in his name. The 1s