1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 made in A.S.No.177 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore reversing the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.1992 made in O.S.No.2090 of 1980 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for partition and mesne profits.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that Rayappa grounder, father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant died on 23.10.1980 at the ripe age of 95 leaving the plaintiffs and the first defendant to succeed to his properties described in the plaint schedule. His wife Masakkal predeceased him and the suit properties jointly belonged to Rayappa Gounder and his wife and they are their ancestral properties and the plaintiffs got married long ago, however, they used to be with their father till about 2 years prior to his death and on account of misunderstandings with the first defendant, who was dominating the Will and mind of the deceased Rayappa Gounder, the plaintiffs were unable to live with their father and prior to his death, Rayappa Gounder was bedridden on account of various ailments and also taking treatment for kidney and prostate gland and he was unable to move about for more than 6 years prior to his death and also not in possession of his mental faculties and not in a sound state of mind both physically and mentally prior to two years of his death. He had always expressed his desire and ambition to divide the suit properties into three equal shares and give each share to his three daughters respectively. However, on account of his illness and physical weakness, he was unable to carryout his wishes and the first defendant, on account of her close association with her father, exercise undue influence and accordingly, brought about the document purporting to be a Will said to have been executed by Rayappa Gounder on 24.01.1979, on which date, he was completely unconscious and lost all the power of understanding and the above said document had been brought about by the first defendant with the help of her men and hence, the document dated 24.01.1979 is void and also not acted upon and surrounded by suspicious circumstances and not a genuine document and by way of the same, the first defendant is not entitled to claim any separate right and interest in respect of the suit properties and inasmuch as the first defendant did not heed to the requests of the plaintiffs to allot their 2/3 shares in the suit property, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the first defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the plaintiffs and the first defendant are the daughters of Rayappa Gounder. However, it is false to state that Rayappa Gounder left the plaintiffs and the first defendant to succeed to his properties described in the plaint equally. It is false to state that Rayappa Gounder and his wife jointly owned the suit properties as their ancestral properties and it is false to state that the plaintiffs had been living with Rayappa Gounder till about two years prior to his death and on account of misunderstandings with the first defendant, they were unable to live with their father till his death. It is false to state that the first defendant had exercised undue influence and been dominating the Will of Rayappa gounder. In fact, sufficient properties had been given to the plaintiffs at the time of their marriage and accordingly, inasmuch as the first defendant had been maintaining her father during his last days and Rayappa Gounder in a sound state of mind, as he was mentally and physically stable till his death and at no point of time, expressed any desire to divide the suit properties amongst his daughters and on the other hand, with a view to leave the suit propert