1. The first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.12 of 1986 is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.12 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The first respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit for declaring that the document gift deed dated 27.04.1982 alleged to have been executed by Late Ponniah Nadar, is void or alternatively to set aside the said document dated 27.04.1982.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and his father Late Ponniah Nadar. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he had filed a suit earlier in O.S.No.381 of 1976 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Padmanabhapuram, for partition of the joint family properties including the suit properties and that the suit was decreed for partition of his ½ share in the properties described as “A” and “B” schedule in the earlier suit.

4. The specific case of the first respondent is that his father was old and sick and that he was completely under the influence of the first defendant and her husband before his death. It is stated by the first respondent that he was constrained to file a second suit in O.S.No.344 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram for permanent injunction since the first defendant and her husband were committing acts of waste in the suit properties by cutting down the valuable trees, etc. The plaintiff stated further that he came to know about the gift deed alleged to have been executed by Late Ponniah Nadar in favour of the first defendant only from the counter affidavit filed by the first defendant in the interim application filed by the plaintiff/first respondent for injunction in the second suit. The plaintiff described the gift deed dated 27.04.1982 as a piece of fabrication, brought into existence by impersonation. The plaintiff pleaded that the document was registered by playing fraud. The mental capacity of the plaintiff's father also was disputed by the plaintiff in the plaint.

5. The suit was contested by the first defendant. It is to be noted that the plaintiff admitted the decree for partition in O.S.No.381 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram and that the right of the plantiff's ½ share in the suit properties. Though the gift deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the first defendant is in respect of the whole properties, the first defendant contended that the gift deed executed by Ponniah Nadar in favour of the first defendant is real and valid at least to the extent of ½ share in respect of the property of Late Ponniah Nadar. The second defendant appears to have entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant in respect of the plaint item No.3 of the suit property. Since the second defendant obtained a sale deed through Court pursuant to the decree for specific performance, obtained as against the first defendant, the second defendant claimed right as owner in the suit third item. The third defendant also claimed that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant prior to the suit filed by the second defendant. He also claimed certain rights in the suit property but the third defendant, however, admitted that the second defendant had taken possession of the suit property through Court and that he is entitled to get back the money from the first defendant which he had paid earlier as part of sale consideration. The defendants 2 and 3 also in their written statement contended that the settlement deed is valid and binding on the plaintiff.

6. The trial Court framed specific issues with regard to the validity of the gift deed dated 27.04.1982. The trial Court also framed an issue as to whether Late Ponniah Nadar was competent to execute the gift deed in respect of the whole of the suit property. The other issue was whether the gift deed is liable to be set aside. The plai