The plaintiff is the appellant. She had executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 19th October 1953. He sold it to the second defendant on 2nd May, 1954, and the second defendant sold it to the third defendant on 9th July, 1965. The third defendant usufructuarily mortgaged the property to one Subbhan Sahib, who assigned it to one Rahimunnissa Bi, who transferred it to one Zackriya Sahib who in turn transferred it to the fourth defendant. The suit was for possession on the ground that the plaintiff executed the document believing it to be a usufructuary mortgage deed, but it had been fraudulently written as a sale deed. The trial Court decreed the suit but the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruppathur allowed the appeal by the sixth defendant, who had subsequently been added as a vendee of the suit property and dismissed the suit.

2. The first point that arose was whether the plaintiff had made out her case that she had executed the document believing it to be a usufructuary mortgage deed. It was the plaintiff that got the document Exhibit A-1 registered before the Sub-Registrar. She says in her evidence that the document was read out at the Sub-Registrar’s of