2026:MHC:1916SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On: 16.04.2026

Delivered on : 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

and

CMP(MD)No.2758 of 2026

Mahalakshmi (Died), ... 1

st

Respondent / Plaintiff

1. Maheswari

2. Jeyachitra,

3. Vaijeyanthimala,

4. Gayathri, ... Appellants / Respondents 3 to 6/

LRs of deceased Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Rajeswari, ... 1

st

Respondent / Appellant /

1

st

Defendant

2. The Sub Registrar

Sub Registrar Office,

Sattur Taluk,

Virudhunagar District. ... 2

nd

Respondent / 2

nd

Respondent/

2

nd

Defendant

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

PRAYER :- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure

Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Subordinate

Judge, Sattur dated 14.03.2025 made in A.S.No.21 of 2021, reversing the

Judgment and Decree passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Sattur made in O.S.No.26 of 2017 dated 25.01.2021 and

allow the Second Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.N.Rahamadullah,

For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan for R2

: Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for R1

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs, in O.S.No.2 6of 2017 on the file of the District

Munsif cum judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, are the appellants herein,

aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court as well as the first

appellate Court.

2. The second appeal was admitted by me on 05.03.2026 on the

following substantial questions of law:

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law

by reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial court

without properly appreciating the legal burden of proof

upon the Defendant to disprove the Plaintiff's consistent

and specific allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in

the execution of the Settlement deed dated 16.07.2007?

(ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court misapplied

presumption under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882 and failed to consider that mere registration of a

Settlement deed does not preclude a finding of fraud or

misrepresentation, especially when the donative intent and

voluntary execution are seriously disputed?

(iii) Whether the Appellate Court committed an

error in law by ignoring documentary evidence such as

patta, tax, and electricity receipts (Exs.A5 to A10) which

are admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 and support the plaintiff's claim of continuous

possession and enjoyment of the property?

3. I have heard Mr.N.Rahamadullah, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel for the first

respondent and Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel for the second respondent.

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

4. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeal and

also the substantial questions of law are as follows:

The plaintiff and the first defendant are sisters. The suit properties

originally belonged to one Nagammal, who had got it from her mother

Guruvammal by way of settlement in the year 1955 and Nagammal

executed a settlement deed dated 14.07.1981 in favour of the plaintiff, in

respect of first item and ½ of the second item of the suit property. The

sister of Nagammal executed a settlement deed on 20.02.1994 in favour

of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining ½ share of the second item of

the suit property and thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the

suit items 1 as well as 2. Even according to the plaintiff, the suit items

3to 6are undivided properties, standing in the name of Nagammal and all

legal heirs of Nagammal are entitled to a share. The plaintiff would

contend that the second item is a house, which is in possession of the

plaintiff and her family members. In respect of which, all taxes and

charges had been paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that taking

advantage of her illiteracy and ill-health, the first defendant, her sister

has fraudulently obtained a settlement deed on 16.07.2007, mis-

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

representing to the plaintiff that she was signing for change of patta.

However, according to the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was renovating

the suit second item house, it was objected, citing the settlement deed

executed by the plaintiff and immediately the plaintiff had applied for

certified copy of settlement deed and contending that the plaintiff has

been in possession of the suit item Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff sought for a

relief of declaration to nullify the settlement deed dated 16.07.2007 and

also seeking for mandatory injunction.

5. The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that the

plaintiff voluntarily executed the settlement deed in favour of the first

defendant. The first defendant also denies the claim of the plaintiff that

the plaintiff is enjoying the second item house and states that it is only

the first defendant, who has been in enjoyment of the said house and not

the plaintiff. The first defendant, however, admits that the suit 3 to 6

items are belonging to all legal heirs of deceased Nagammal, except

insofar as a portion of item No.3, which was settled by Nagammal, on

the first defendant vide settlement deed, dated 14.07.1981. According to

the first defendant, the children of the plaintiff were all brought up only

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

by the first defendant and without any inducement, voluntarily, the

plaintiff executed the settlement deed, and the suit items are only in the

possession of the first defendant.

6. The Sub Registrar, who was arrayed as the second defendant,

filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff appeared in person and

voluntarily executed the document and all registration formalities had

been properly carried out. The second defendant also states that there is

no cause of action for filing the suit against the second defendant, who is

an unnecessary party.

7. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined two witnesses as

P.W.1and P.W.2 and 16 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A16.On

the side of the first defendant, two witnesses were examined as D.W.

1and D.W.2 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.B1to Ex.B5.The

Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex.C1 and

Ex.C2.

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

8. The trial Court, considering the pleadings as well as the oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, decreed the suit.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the first

defendant preferred A.S.No.21 of 2021. The first appellate Court on re-

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, set aside the findings

of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

9. Aggrieved by the reversal findings of the first appellate Court,

the present second appeal has been filed.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the

plaintiff had specifically pleaded that she was an illiterate lady, illiteracy

had been taken undue advantage of the first defendant, to bring about the

settlement deed. He would further state that the plea of illiteracy is not

even denied in the written statement and in such circumstances, the first

defendant was clearly in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and

having taken advantage of the fact that the plaintiff did not know to read

and write, the plaintiff’s signature on the settlement deed had been

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

obtained by fraud, and the plaintiff had signed the document only for the

purpose of mutation of patta. It is therefore submit that it is a clear case

of mis-representation and burden was on the first defendant to establish

that there was nothing improper in execution of the settlement deed. The

learned counsel would further state that the suit properties are still in the

possession of the plaintiff and the settlement deed was never acted upon

as well. In this regard, he would take me through the cross examination

of D.W.1, where there is an admission of possession of the house being

with the plaintiff. He would further state that the plaintiff has also

explained the delay in approaching the Court, since the fraud committed

by the first defendant came to light only when the plaintiff was

renovating the house situate in the second item of the suit property and

therefore when the plaintiff was kept in the dark about the execution of

the settlement deed, the delay cannot be put against the

plaintiff/appellant .

11. He would further state that the defendants had set up a case

that the daughter of the plaintiff had eloped with a person with 15

sovereigns belonging to the first defendant and only in order to

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

compensate the said jewelry, the plaintiff had executed the settlement

deed, in favour of the first defendant. He would therefore state that when

the defendants had taken a stand that the settlement deed was supported

by consideration and failed to establish the same, at trial, it only

probablised the case of the plaintiff that the settlement deed is not a

genuine or valid document, binding on the plaintiff. The learned counsel

for the appellant has also stated that even the said reason with regard to

settlement deed was not even pleaded in the written statement and such

theory was set up only during the course of trial of the suit. The learned

counsel further argued that there is also no endorsement in the settlement

deed that it was read over and explained to the plaintiff. In the

circumstances, the contents of the document are not helpful to the

plaintiff’s claim, and the execution and registration thereof have not been

proved as required under law

12. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel would rely

upon the judgment in Chidambaram Pillai v. Muthammal reported in

1993-1-MLJ-535.

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

13. Per contra, Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel for the

first respondent, would firstly state that the plaintiff had only 1/8 share in

item Nos.3 to 6 and owned item Nos.1 and 2 alone absolutely. He would

further state that the plaintiff had categorically admitted the execution of

the settlement deed. He would further state that the settlement deed had

been acted upon and even the settlement deed mentioned the fact that the

settlee was even put in possession. It is his further case that custody of

the original documents were also given to the first defendant, who

produced the same, which falsified the case projected by the plaintiff. He

would also state that D.W.2 witness to the settlement deed has clearly

spoken about the voluntarily execution of the settlement deed by the

plaintiff and therefore, the plea of illiteracy and fiduciary relationship

cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would state that the first

appellate Court has rightly assessed the oral and documentary evidence

and set aside the erroneous findings rendered by the trial Court. The

learned counsel would therefore state that no interference is warranted in

the present second appeal.

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

14. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsel on either side.

15. The plaintiff is none else than the sister of the first defendant

and it is not in dispute that the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the

suit item Nos.1 and 2, besides also having 1/8 share in item Nos.3 to 6. It

is the case of the plaintiff that she is an illiterate lady and taking

advantage of the same, the first defendant had fraudulently brought about

the settlement deed, taking the plaintiff to the Sub Registrar office under

the pretext that the plaintiff had to sign for mutation of revenue records.

Thus, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff executed the settlement deed.

Therefore, what remains to be considered is whether the settlement deed

was executed voluntarily or whether it was vitiated by fraud and

misrepresentation played upon the plaintiff.

16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants,

the plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is an

illiterate lady. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

said averment of the plaintiff is not even specifically denied. In such

circumstances, even assuming that the benefit of doubt can be given to

the plaintiff and it can be held that the plaintiff was in fiduciary

relationship with the first defendant and burden was upon the first

defendant to prove the voluntarily execution of the settlement deed,

D.W.2's evidence virtually demolishes the case of the plaintiff, D.W.2

has clearly spoken about the fact that the plaintiff appeared before the

Sub Registrar and fully knowing the contents, the plaintiff signed the

settlement deed. The Sub Registrar had also filed a written statement

stating that the plaintiff appeared in person and all registration

formalities were duly completed by her at the time of registration of the

settlement deed. The settlement deed was executed on 16.07.2007.

However, the same was not questioned until the filing of the suit. The

plaintiff attempts to cover up the delay by contending that when the

plaintiff renovating the house in the second item of the house, the

defendants brought up the issue of the settlement deed and objected to

the same and therefore, the plaintiff immediately rushed to Court for

necessary and suitably relief to protect her right interest possession in the

suit property.

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

17. In the plaint, the plaintiff alleges that on 20.10.2016, when the

plaintiff was carrying out repairs to the compound wall in the front

portion and fixing a gate, the first defendant came and objected to the

said activities being carried on and only then, the first defendant

mentioned about the execution of the settlement deed, even on

16.07.2007 by the plaintiff herself. It is also stated in the plaint that

immediately the plaintiff’s husband applied for and obtained a certified

copy of the settlement deed as early as 24.10.2016. Strangely, the suit

came to be filed only in April 2017. If, as alleged, the plaintiff’s valuable

properties had been unlawfully taken away by the first defendant, it is

highly improbable that the plaintiff, even assuming she is illiterate,

would have remained silent for nearly six months before initiating legal

proceedings.

18. Even otherwise, when the plaintiff admits the execution of the

settlement deed, comes up with a case of mis-representation and fraud,

the burden of proof is very heavily only on the plaintiff. As already

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

discussed, even if a case of fiduciary relationship is assumed, still, by

examining one of the attesting witnesses to the settlement deed as D.W.2,

and in view of the statutory requirements having been complied with

under the settlement deed, the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit

therefrom. The first defendant has clearly established that the settlement

deed was executed by the plaintiff voluntarily and without any coercion

from any person whomsoever. On the side of the plaintiff, there is

absolutely no evidence regarding the mis-representation alleged by her.

In fact, there is no explanation as to how the title deed went into the

possession of the first defendant. Mere fact that the first defendant had

admitted that the plaintiff continues to be in possession may not be a

ground in isolation to invalidate the settlement deed itself.

19. In this regard, the decision of this Court in Vasanthiri v.

Govindan, reported in 2021-6-CTC-808, has also been relied upon by

the first appellate Court. This Court in the said decision, held that

transfer in the case of immovable property only requires a registered

instrument and the law does not make delivery of possession of

immovable property an additional requirement for the gift deed to be

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

valid. The first appellate Court also rightly found that the settlement

deed Ex.B3 clearly established that the gift deed was acted

upon immediately. In such view of the matter, I do not see any

misapplication of the settled principles of law, warranting interference in

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

20. Even with regard to the case set up by the defendants that the

plaintiff's daughter eloped with 15 sovereigns belonging to the first

defendant and that the settlement deed was executed only for

compensating the said 15 sovereigns of gold, no doubt as rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no pleadings

with regard to the said version projected by the first defendant in the

witness box. It is a settled position of law that no amount of evidence can

be looked into in the absence of pleadings. Even otherwise, at best, the

version projected by the first defendant can only be viewed as a

weakness in the defence set up by her and it does not absolve the

plaintiff from establishing the allegation of fraud and mis-representation.

As already held, not only has the plaintiff miserably failed to establish

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

the plea of fraud and misrepresentation by the first defendant, but, the

first defendant has also proved the fact that the settlement deed was in

fact executed voluntarily by the plaintiff and knowing the contents of the

same. The argument that the document does not state that the contents

of the settlement deed were read over and explained to the plaintiff and

therefore, the settlement deed is not a valid document can never be

countenanced. It is a registered document executed before the competent

Sub Registrar, who has also filed a written statement, stating that the

plaintiff participated in the execution formalities and there was nothing

illegal and improper in the said process.

21. In the light of the above, I do not see how the plaintiff is

entitled to succeed in reversing the well considered findings by the first

appellate Court in the second appeal.

22. Coming to the decision on which relied on by the learned

counsel for the appellants in Chidambaram's case, this Court held that

when the plaintiff is an illiterate Woman and incapable of understanding,

the burden is not discharged by mere proof of execution of the document,

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

but the law requires clear proof of contents of the document executed by

the illiterate person. There is no quarrel with regard to the said

proposition laid down by this Court in the above case. However, it is

noted that in the facts of those case, the executant only affixed left

Thumb impression and had not even signed the document. However, in

the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff signed the settlement deed and

further her husband also being around and even obtained certified copy

of the settlement deed, even according to the plaintiff. The plaintiff

having executed documents, even assuming for change of patta, the

plaintiff has not been able to explain as to how the original document of

title was into the hands of the defendants. Therefore, the decision is not

applicable to the facts of the present case.

23. For all the above reasons, I do not find any perversity in the

findings of the first appellate Court, warranting interference in second

appeal. The substantial questions of law are answered against the

appellants.

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

24. In fine, the second appeal is dismissed and the judgment and

decree of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.21 of 2017 is hereby

confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

05.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

LS

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

TO

1. The Subordinate Judge,

Sattur.

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Sattur.

3.The Section Officer,

VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

4. The Sub Registrar,

Sub Registrar Office,

Sattur Taluk,

Virudhunagar District.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA(MD). No.75 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI,J.

LS

Pre-delivery judgment made in

SA(MD) No.75 of 2026

05.06.2026

20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis