The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the validity of a registered document, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court will presume the document to be valid. Additionally, as a co-owner, one is not entitled to an injunction against the other co-owner.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Polur who succeeded in the suit but lost the appeal in A.S.No.60 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai, is the appellant in Second Appeal No.481 of 1995. The plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 1990 was the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Polur, and he succeeded in the suit, but the decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 1991 was reversed in A.S.No.69 of 1994 and hence he has filed Second Appeal No.482 of 1995. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above second appeals are set-out below:

(a) The plaintiff-Subramanian is the son of Narayanaswamy Gounder @ Kannu Gounder through his wife-Thanjiammal-the first defendant and the second defendant is the sister of the plaintiff-Subramanian. Narayanaswamy Gounder and his brother Rangaswamy Gounder were enjoying their ancestral properties without making division till their death. After their death Thanjiammal, Subramanian and Radhakrishnan-son of Rangaswamy Gounder entered into a registered partition deed dated 212. 1972. Under that, partition A schedule fell to the share of Thanjiammal and Subramanian and B schedule therein was allotted to the share of Radhakrishnan. Thanjiammal executed a registered settlement deed dated 12.07.1990 in favour of her daughter-Pachiammal in respect of a specified extent of two acres in S.F.No.314/2 together with a half share in the Well and motor pumpset fitted in the Well. Subsequently by another registered document dated 30.07.1990, Thanjiammal cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of Pachiammal.

(b) On 25.07.1990 Subramanian filed a suit in O.S.No.231 of 1990 before the District Munsif Court, Polur, against his mother-Thanjiammal and sister-Pachiammal seeking a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the entire extent of 3.94 acres in S.F.No.314/2 and the Well and motor pumpset fitted thereto and also got an order of interim injunction. Pending the said suit Pachiammal filed O.S.No.16 of 1991 on the file of the same Court against Subramanian for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits in respect of the property settled on her by her mother under the settlement deed dated 12.07.1990.

(c) The case of Subramanian as put forth in the above said two suits is that he becomes the absolute owner of the A schedule property of the partition deed after the death of his mother-Thanjiammal and his mother had been given only a life interest; as his mother is an aged women, he was looking after her out of the income derived from the said property and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same; the patta and the electricity service connection of the Well stands in his name; Pachiammal who is in hostile terms with him got a sham and nominal settlement deed executed in her favour by his mother who had no right to settle the property; since Pachiammal attempted to disturb the possession it has become necessary for him to file the suit for permanent injunction. It is his further case that after coming to know about the fraud played upon her by Pachiammal, Thanjiammal executed a registered cancellation deed dated 30.07.1990 cancelling the settlement deed dated 12.07.1990; the settlement deed executed by Thanjiammal is a sham and nominal document which was not acted upon as possession was never delivered to Pachiammal and the settlement has not come into force.

(d) Whereas the case of Pachiammal, the second defendant in O.S.No.231 of 1990 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 1991, is that the settlement deed was executed by her mother on her own will and volition; the settlement was accepted by her and the same has been acted upon and the settlement deed is not sham and nominal as contended by Subramanian; she was put in possession of the property settled under the Settlement deed dated