JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.327 of 2004 is the appellant before this Court. The parties are arrayed in the same ranking as in the suit.

2.The facts in brief which are necessary for disposing of the above Second Appeal are hereinbelow narrated:

PLAINTIFF'S CASE:

The plaintiff has filed the suit for a Partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties which consisted of 5 items of the properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the properties in question were the ancestral joint family properties of her father-in-law Chinaraji (father of her husband Ravi). The said Chinaraji died leaving behind him surviving wife, the 2nd defendant, his sons, Ravi, the plaintiff's husband, Jeyachandran and his daughter Jayalakshmi as his legal representatives to succeed to the joint family properties. The case of the plaintiff is that her husband was suffering from AIDS and was totally bedridden and undergoing treatment. The 1st defendant has appeared to have got a Release Deed dated 15.06.2004 executed as if the same was executed by her husband Ravi. The plaintiff is not aware of such Deed and within a few days of filing the divorce application, her husband Ravi died. The plaintiff would submit that the Release Deed is created by fraud and undue influence and is therefore not a valid document and being the wife of the deceased Ravi, she is entitled to a share in the suit properties along with the defendants. Since the 1st defendant had taken a defence that the daughter Jayalakshmi had not been impleaded the plaintiff had filed an application to implead the said Jayalakshmi and she had been impleaded in the proceedings vide order dated 05.09.2006 in I.A.No.664 of 2005. The plaintiff would submit that despite her request for amicable partition, the defendants had not come forward to partition the properties, hence, they instituted the suit.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 1st DEFENDANT:

3.The 1st defendant had filed a Written Statement inter alia contending that the suit properties were not the ancestral joint properties of his father Chinaraji and some of the properties have been purchased by himself, deceased Ravi and the other brother Sekar from third parties. The 1st defendant had stated that his father had died leaving behind his wife, the 2nd defendant, his sons Ravi, the 1st defendant and one Sekar and daughter Jayalakshmi. It was also stated that Sekar thereafter died issueless as bachelor.

4.The defendants admitted the plaintiff's case that her husband was suffering from AIDS and was completely bedridden. He however denied the allegations that he had exercised undue influence and fraudulently created the Release Deed. He would contend that the said Ravi was unable to meet his medical expenses and hence, he received a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 15.06.2004 and executed a registered Release Deed and relinquished his share in favour of the 1st defendant and therefore, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the properties. The 1st defendant would further submit that the plaintiff has deserted her husband immediately on coming to know that he was suffering from AIDS and she has also initiated criminal proceedings against her husband and the said Ravi was forced to pay a sum of Rs.37,000/- on two occasions, i.e., Rs.25,000/- on 03.03.2004 and a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 22.04.2004.

5.The criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff was taken on file in C.S.R.No.36/2004 by the All Women Police Station, Thirupattur. The 1st defendant would submit that while executing the Release Deed, the deceased Ravi had received a sum of Rs.90,000/- only for the purpose of meeting his medical expenses and for paying the amounts to the plaintiff. He would also submit that the said Ravi had filed H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirupattur seeking dissolution of his marriage with the plaintiff.

TRIAL COURT:

6.The plaintiff had examined herself as P.W.1 and her father was examined as P.W.2. She had not filed an