JUDGMENT

S.S.SUNDAR, J., (1) The defendants in the suit in OS.No.43/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem, are the appellants in this Appeal. The 1st appellant is the father of the 2nd appellant. The 1st appellant is no more and there is no abatement since the 2nd appellant is already on record. Since the 2nd appellant is the legal heir of the 1st appellant and the 1st appellant has also executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the 2nd appellant, the 2nd appellant is recorded as the legal representative of the deceased/1st appellant.

(2) The respondent in this appeal is none else than the daughter of the 1st appellant and the sister of the 2nd appellant. She filed the suit in O.S.No.43/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem, for a declaration, declaring the Settlement Deed dated 19.11.2010 executed by the 1st appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant in respect of the portion of suit properties, is not binding on the plaintiff and for partition of 1/3 share of the plaintiff with reference to good and bad soil by metes and bounds by appointing a Commissioner and for separate possession of her 1/3rd share.

(3) The suit properties consist of agricultural lands comprised in various survey numbers in Idanganasalai Village along with a residential house in S.NO.94/3 and other properties as described in the suit schedule.

(4) The relationship is not in dispute. In the plaint, it is the specific case of the plaintiff/respondent that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants. It is stated that the suit properties were the properties owned by the plaintiff's grandparents, namely, Venkatachalam Reddy and Thylammal. There was a partition in the joint family consisting of plaintiff's grandparents, the 1st defendant and his brother in respect of the family properties owned by the joint family on 26.03.1969 under a registered Partition Deed vide Document No.1038/1969 and it is stated that the suit properties were allotted to 1st defendant. Stating that the suit properties are the joint family properties of both the plaintiff and defendants, it is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants were in joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties without a partition and that the 1st appellant/1st defendant, as Kartha of family, was paying kist to all the properties in his name.

(5) It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, due to misunderstanding between her and the 2nd defendant, wanted partition of the suit properties and issued a suit notice. It is also her case that she came to know that the 1st defendant had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit properties on 19.11.2010 and that the said Settlement Deed was obtained in favour of the 2nd defendant by coercion and undue influence taking advantage of the old age of the 1st defendant/father. The Settlement Deed was described by the plaintiff as null and void. It was also stated by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant/1st appellant has no right to execute the Settlement Deed in favour of the 2nd defendant including the plaintiff's share in the suit properties and therefore, the plaintiff is not bound by the Settlement Deed and that the Settlement Deed will not affect her

1/3rd share in the suit properties.

(6) The suit was contested by the appellants. The written statement filed by the 1st defendant was adopted by the 2nd defendant. In the written statement, the registered Partition Deed dated 26.03.1969 and the allotment of 'B' Schedule properties therein to the 1st defendant is admitted. Even though in the written statement, in one place, it is stated that the properties do not imbibe the character of ancestral properties, it is admitted that the properties in the hands of defendants became joint family properties. However, it is stated that the plaintiff is not a coparcener and cannot be treated so as the appellants/defendants and the male hei