Judgment :- This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 17.1.1989, rendered in A.S.No.58 of 1988 on the file of District Judge, Chengalpattu. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. 2.The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows. The plaintiff is the eldest son of defendant No.1 and defendants 2 to 4 are his other sons and they constitute a joint Hindu Family. The suit properties are undivided Hindu Joint Family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Pending the suit, the first defendant died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share and the defendants 2 to 4 are entitled each to 1/4th share in the properties. The joint family owned 60 goats, which multiplied in number and they were sold for good price. Later, rams were purchased by the joint family and they were sold and lands were purchased by defendant No.1 for the joint family. The plaintiff, who was employed in Forest Department, raised casuarina crop in plaint item 7 and it was sold and the money was utilised to discharge debts as well as to pay the purchase money for purchasing item 7 in the name of his mother. The plaintiff's sister Rukmani Ammal died about 20 years ago, issueless. The plaintiff and the defendants are her legal heirs and they are entitled to equal share. The plaintiff and the defendants, out of their own earnings and joint exertions, purchased several items of properties and they were treated as joint family properties. The plaint 8th item of Punja land was purchased in the name of their mother Annapurani Ammal during the year 1963 for the benefit of the joint family and she died in the month of April, 1976. In fact, out of the joint family funds, a Well was sunk in that property and an Oil Engine was fixed. Plaint items 9 and 10 were purchased in the year 1970 in the name of defendants 2 and 3 by raising loan over plaint items 1 and 5 from Doraiswamy Naicker's son-in-law. Defendants 2 and 3 have no independent earnings and defendant No.4 is yet to be married. The plaintiff, though having a separate residence with his maternal uncle, the properties are in joint possession with the defendants and enjoyed as undivided Hindu Joint Family properties. Defendants 2 and 3 have no independent earnings and defendant No.4 is yet to be married. The plaintiff, though having a separate residence with his maternal uncle, the properties are in joint possession with the defendants and enjoyed as undivided Hindu Joint Family properties. The defendants 2 and 3 took defendant No.1 to Sub-Registrar's Office at Thiruporur and created a fraudulent deed in their names by exercising undue influence and coercion on him with regard to plaint items. From that onwards, there was difference of o