The essence of undue influence requires clear evidence of coercive circumstances affecting the validity of legal documents, which was upheld in this case.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta in its Judgment and Decree in O.S No.142 of 2001 as affirmed by the Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta in A.S No.82 of 2006. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, fixation of boundary and seperate possession and injunction against the defendant. Item 1 to 3 comprising of 34 ½ cents, 10 cents and 24 ¼ cents belonged to one late Samuel, the husband of the 2^nd plaintiff and the father of Plaintiffs 1, 3 and the defendant/appellant herein. The father, namely, late Samuel got title and possession over these properties as per the registered sale deeds and partition deed executed in his favour. In the year 1987, it is contended that late Samuel gifted his southern most room in the upstairs and half cents on its south for the construction of stair case to the 3rd plaintiff as per Settlement deed No.1783/87 and in the next year he executed a registered Will deed No.III/25/1988 in respect of the remaining properties in favour of the defendant and the 1^st plainti Will, the middle room in the upstairs and the southern most two rooms in the down floor, the eastern lean and 24 ½ cents on the east of such building was given to the defendant and the remaining northern most two rooms in the upstairs and down floor, the lean attached to its east and the eastern 10 cents was allotted to the 1^st plainti cents shown in item No.1 was given to the defendant and the 28 ¼ cents was given to the 1^st plainti the right of the 2nd plaintiff in collecting the rent of the building was reserved in the above document and the possession of the properties were also given to the respective sharers. On 29.06.2000, the late Samuel died due to lung cancer. After the death of their father, the defendant demanded rent from the shop room belonging to the plaintiffs 1 and 3 claiming that he has got an absolute right in the building as per the settlement deed executed by his father. Thus, three settlement deeds bearing No.3099/99, 3100/99, 3427/99 were the documents according to the plaintiffs, executed by exerting undue influence by the defendant over late Samuel. Thus, a suit was instituted seeking cancellation of the said documents and also for injunction of boundary and the consequential reliefs. The suit was resisted by the defendant by contending that the settlement deeds were valid and were executed without any undue influence exerted over late Samuel. It is further contended that the Will never came into effect and that the property settled in his favour is covered by the Will of late Samuel, the father of the defendant. It is further contended that the documents executed by the father are valid and that the father was not being properly taken care of by the plaintiffs being a cancer patient subject to chemotherapy, during the last stages of his father’s life is precisely the reason why the father had a change of mind and executed the settlement deeds in his favour. Thus, it is contended that the settlement deeds are genuine and therefore the declaration cannot be granted. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts. A1 to A23 documents were produced and PW1 to PW10 were examined. On the defendant’s side DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B4(a) were marked. Exts. X1 to X3 are the third party documents. The trial court on appreciation of the rival pleadings, raised the following issues.

“1)Are the settlement deeds No.3100/99 and 3427/99 liable to be set aside or declared void on the grounds alleged in the plaint?

2) Is the de