MARY JOHN AND ANR. Vs. RATNABAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal has been preferred by the defendants while the plaintiffs have preferred the cross objections.

(2.) The suit is for partition of the plaintiffs' half share in items 1 and 2 and a half share in the B schedule after setting aside the gift deed and sale deed dated 14.1.1974 and 24.1.1974 respectively. There is also a prayer for redemption of the half share of the plaintiffs in the B schedule.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the properties in the A schedule belonged in Devasahayam, the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the father of the first defendant. The B schedule property belonged to Arputham alias Muthammal, the grandmother of the plaintiffs and the mother of the first defendant. The grand -mother Arputham died before the grandfather, Mariadasan, the father of the plaintiffs predeceased his mother Arputham. According to them, the documents have come into existence i.e., one gift deed dated 14.1.1974 and the sale deed dated 26.1.1974. These documents were obtained by coercion and undue influence as the grand -father Devasahayam was very old and sick, by the first defendant. Hence they are not valid documents. If these documents are eschewed, the plaintiffs will be entitled to the reliefs as prayed for as per the law existed then i.e., the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 M.E.