Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal (died) and 4 others
Versus
Muthammal and another
A.S. No. 231 of 1981 and C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1981
Decided On : 26-04-1999
SETTLEMENT DEED - EXECUTION - FRAUD - BURDEN OF PROOF - REGISTRATION - EFFECT - VOID TRANSACTION - VOIDABLE TRANSACTION - DISTINCTION - NON EST FACTUM - APPLICABILITY - ILLITERATE PERSON - PROTECTION - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, an illiterate woman, executed a settlement deed in favor of defendants, her niece and her husband. She alleged that she was fraudulently induced to sign the deed, believing it to be a power of attorney. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud and undue influence. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the burden of proof was on the defendants to prove the validity of the transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the plaintiff executed the settlement deed with a true understanding mind. The Court held that the plaintiff was not aware of the nature of the document and her mind did not accompany her signature. The Court further held that the registration of the deed did not validate it, as the sub-registrar did not read over the contents of the document to the plaintiff or satisfy himself that she knew it was a settlement deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants discharged the burden of proof to show that the plaintiff executed the settlement deed with a true understanding mind? 2. Whether the registration of the deed validated it?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof is on the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardahnashin lady to establish that the said document was executed by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. It should be established that it was not only her physical act but also her mental act. The burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and that she understood it, but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial. 2. The mere fact that a will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a Will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the Will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that is was done in a perfunctory manner, that the office registering the Will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a Will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by se eing the testator reading the Will) that the testator knew that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the Will was registered would not be of much value.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and declared that the plaintiff had unknowingly put her signature in the settlement deed. The Court also declared that the mind of the plaintiff did not accompany her signature and she never intended to sign the deed. The Court further declared that the deed was a void transaction and granted a decree setting it aside. However, the Court held that the plaintiff and the defendants were jointly entitled to the plaint schedule property as they had become co-owners.
1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 447 of 1979 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli is the appellant in this appeal. Subsequent to the filing of appeal, she died and appellants 2 to 4 have been brought on record as legal heirs of deceased appellant.
2. Suit filed by plaintiff was to set aside the settlement deed dated 21. 1975 and consequently to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff. The material averments in the plaint could be summarised thus: The property originally belonged to one Veerabagu Pillai, husband of plaintiff. He died on 111. 1973. The couple had no issues. It was the case of plaintiff that plaint property was leased out to one Arumugham (PW4) and due to her old age, she was not in a position to adm inister and manage the property. It is her further case that she has no good vision and also illiterate. Except she knows how to sign, she has no education. It is said that lessee Arumugham committed default in paying rent and therefore to initiate steps to protect her and the property, she wanted a power of attorney to be executed. First defendant is none other than her brother’s daughter and second defendant is her husband. With her brother plaintiff is not retaining any good relationship and he is li ving with another woman belonging to another caste. So far as first defendant is concerned, she was moving very closely with plaintiff and it was even before marriage plaintiff had absolute confidence on defendants and both defendants were very closely moving towards plaintiff. At that time, defendants requested plaintiff that if a power of attorney is executed in their favour, they can take necessary action for recovery of rent and they can also take necessary steps to administer and manage the property and also to protect the interest of plaintiff.
3. In view of the confidence which plaintiff had over them, plaintiff was also prepared to sign any document that is brought by defendants. Second defendant represented plaintiff that power of attorney has been prepared and wanted plaintiff to go to Sub-Registrar’s Office to sign the same. When plaintiff went to Sub- Registrar’s officer, the document is already prepared and plaintiff was asked to sign the same. The document was not read over to plaintiff nor Sub-Registrar asked her about the contents of t he deed.
4. In fact, at the time, when plaintiff was taken to Sub-Registrar’s office, second respondent informed plaintiff that if Sub-Registrar ask any question, she was asked to answer that since she has no issues, only defendants should manage the same and such answer was directed to be given to sub-Registrar. In fact, sub-Registrar also did not question the plaintiff about the document and plaintiff also did not spend any amount for executing or registering the deed. Plaintiff also did not spend any amount for stamp paper nor for registration expenses. The document was taken back from the sub-Registrar’s office.
5. After two years, defendants came and resided with plaintiff for some time and even at that time, they moved with plaintiff very closely. Even after execution of deed, plaintiff continued to take the income and even the rent was being collected by her and defendants did not collect any rent though she had informed Arumugham about the fact that she has executed power of attorney in favour of defendants. Defendants resided with plaintiff for six and half months in the year 1977, from January to July. Later defendants also left the house of plaintiff and plaintiff also did not get any information whether arrears of rent have been collected from Arumugham. Plaintiff was also not informed whether the property was managed properly. Since plaintiff was not given any information about the management of the lease, plaintiff wanted the power of attorney back, which defendants refused to part with. At that time, it was informed to plaintiff that what she has written is a settlement of deed and not power of attor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
